Noots Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 http://www.nootsnotes.com/2009/11/13/noots...-san-francisco/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flea Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 anyone else think we are changing returners a bit much leading to neither being effective? pick 1 & leave him in Roach had to leave the game after a hit because he wasn't wearing a cup, kinda sums it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 anyone else think we are changing returners a bit much leading to neither being effective? pick 1 & leave him in Roach had to leave the game after a hit because he wasn't wearing a cup, kinda sums it up Agreed. Personally, I would leave it with Manning. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Just for the record, and this surprised the hell out of me when I heard it, but a couple weeks ago, Mike Golic said few players actually wear a cup. anyone else think we are changing returners a bit much leading to neither being effective? pick 1 & leave him in Roach had to leave the game after a hit because he wasn't wearing a cup, kinda sums it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I honestly want hester just returning and get him off the offense. We turned the world's greatest returner into an average WR. Bad trade-off... anyone else think we are changing returners a bit much leading to neither being effective? pick 1 & leave him in Roach had to leave the game after a hit because he wasn't wearing a cup, kinda sums it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I still to this day have no issue with the move. History has proven that no return man continues to be as effective as Hester over the long haul. Teams adjust, and the ability of that player to continue at such a level simply goes away. Moving him to WR provides an opportunity to play at a high level over a longer period of time. What a game like last night shows though is our need to move him back into a slot role. From the slot, he could be a very dangerous weapon. In the #1 WR role though, he is hurting more than helping. While he makes some very good plays, he simply lacks the consistency. You need far less consistency in your play when you are a slot WR, than if you are the #1 WR who the QB is relying upon. I honestly want hester just returning and get him off the offense. We turned the world's greatest returner into an average WR. Bad trade-off... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noots Posted November 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I still to this day have no issue with the move. History has proven that no return man continues to be as effective as Hester over the long haul. Teams adjust, and the ability of that player to continue at such a level simply goes away. Moving him to WR provides an opportunity to play at a high level over a longer period of time. What a game like last night shows though is our need to move him back into a slot role. From the slot, he could be a very dangerous weapon. In the #1 WR role though, he is hurting more than helping. While he makes some very good plays, he simply lacks the consistency. You need far less consistency in your play when you are a slot WR, than if you are the #1 WR who the QB is relying upon. Agreed whole-heartedly. Hester, IMHO, is ideal as your #3 receiver. It struck me that way from the moment they started calling him their #1. And that's shocking. I actually think Earl Bennett is developing nicely and should stay and be the #2. However, they so very desperately need a big #1 WR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Agreed whole-heartedly. Hester, IMHO, is ideal as your #3 receiver. It struck me that way from the moment they started calling him their #1. And that's shocking. I actually think Earl Bennett is developing nicely and should stay and be the #2. However, they so very desperately need a big #1 WR. I wonder if Olsen were to trim down 10 to 15 pounds if he could be a #1. Would he gain any speed? He is a horrible blocker for a TE and we really need to get in a TE who can do both. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Just for the record, and this surprised the hell out of me when I heard it, but a couple weeks ago, Mike Golic said few players actually wear a cup. I haven't worn a cup since Grade School. Some players prefer to wear cups, but most prefer not. Wearing a cup feels restricting and limiting to movement. Even in baseball, the only guy that probably still wears a cup is the cathcer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Heck, why not!? I wonder if Olsen were to trim down 10 to 15 pounds if he could be a #1. Would he gain any speed? He is a horrible blocker for a TE and we really need to get in a TE who can do both. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Regarding Olsen, the other thing about him that drives me nuts is how soft he is. Did anyone else notice how he seemed to go down on numerous shoe lace tackles? The TE position is supposed to be filled w/ a guy w/ an attitude and toughness. It is mind boggling to have a finesse TE, but that is what Olsen seems to be. Could he play WR? I don't know. Earlier this season, he was getting matched up against opponents CBs, and Olsen was pretty much shut down. I think he looks best when he initially lines up at TE, then motions outside, where the D is forced to play a LB or S in space against him. Heck, why not!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 yes! There was one play I swroe ig he broke the shoelace tackel, he'd have hit paydirt! I think if you played him at WR with a legit #1 and a Hester on field, matchup problems would ensue... That's a lot of if's... Regarding Olsen, the other thing about him that drives me nuts is how soft he is. Did anyone else notice how he seemed to go down on numerous shoe lace tackles? The TE position is supposed to be filled w/ a guy w/ an attitude and toughness. It is mind boggling to have a finesse TE, but that is what Olsen seems to be. Could he play WR? I don't know. Earlier this season, he was getting matched up against opponents CBs, and Olsen was pretty much shut down. I think he looks best when he initially lines up at TE, then motions outside, where the D is forced to play a LB or S in space against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Its a nice thought, but I just don't know. When faced up against CBs this year, he has not been able to get open. Olsen is such that he is a mismatch against LBs and S', but if the other team puts a CB on him, he can't get open. I think the better answer is to simply force teams to play their CBs on our WRs. Part of that is on our receivers, but another big part is on our run game. Too often this year, teams have used the nickel to matchup against us, using a 3rd CB to play Olsen. That means we "should" be killing teams on the ground, but we have not even been able to run the ball against opponents nickel defenses. yes! There was one play I swroe ig he broke the shoelace tackel, he'd have hit paydirt! I think if you played him at WR with a legit #1 and a Hester on field, matchup problems would ensue... That's a lot of if's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Agreed whole-heartedly. Hester, IMHO, is ideal as your #3 receiver. It struck me that way from the moment they started calling him their #1. And that's shocking. I actually think Earl Bennett is developing nicely and should stay and be the #2. However, they so very desperately need a big #1 WR. The big problem was the Bears gave him #1 Wr money. I still think and thought at the time that the best think we could do was trade him for the draft picks. I'd still trade him for a 2nd rounder today if we had a chance, especially with the lack of picks that we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DABEARSDABOMB Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I wonder if Olsen were to trim down 10 to 15 pounds if he could be a #1. Would he gain any speed? He is a horrible blocker for a TE and we really need to get in a TE who can do both. Peace Have you seen Olsen run routes though. Very uncrisp and very poor. He has great tools but isn't a great football player. Him and Hester are two guys I'd trade in a heartbeat because I think we could get decent value draft pick wise for him (and have a massive need there) and could find veteran replacements for relatively cheap, imo. Plus I happen to like Kellen Davis and still think Clark has a bit left in his tank as well. Neither will be as good as Olsen but I think Olsen is heavily over-rated and isn't a good enough receiver as a Te to make up for his inadequacies when it comes to blocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 Have you seen Olsen run routes though. Very uncrisp and very poor. He has great tools but isn't a great football player. Him and Hester are two guys I'd trade in a heartbeat because I think we could get decent value draft pick wise for him (and have a massive need there) and could find veteran replacements for relatively cheap, imo. Plus I happen to like Kellen Davis and still think Clark has a bit left in his tank as well. Neither will be as good as Olsen but I think Olsen is heavily over-rated and isn't a good enough receiver as a Te to make up for his inadequacies when it comes to blocking. I am inclined to agree. I don't think Hester will ever be a great receiver or Olsen a top flight TE. If we could get value for them and use that to improve our o-line, I would say go for it. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 I'd tend to agree as well. I am inclined to agree. I don't think Hester will ever be a great receiver or Olsen a top flight TE. If we could get value for them and use that to improve our o-line, I would say go for it. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Hester has actually been a pretty good WR for us. He had 1 bad game and I'm not condoning that awful performance in SF. But if 1 bad game means you're average, I guess Steve Smith isn't good since he hasn't had a GREAT game so far this year. Hester is still on pace for 80+ catches and 1000+ yards + probably 7-9 TD's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 I disagree. Hester and Olsen are weapons, and while they may not be 30.06 caliber, they are still 7.62 or 5.56 caliber. Either way, small bullets are better than none in your firearm (i.e. Cutler), and you don't completely reload until you have your next batch of ammo ready. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.