Can we let the man do what he wants please?

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I saw your earlier reply post to my own and am now just getting caught up. To address that point first. As I told another poster earlier on, your interpretation of numbers are different than mine own. I too wrote down Hester's numbers and compared them to the other "main" recievers on the roster and he proved nothing extraordinary compared to them. Something else I didn't point out was that not only was he the "#1" receiver but he also had at least one year on the other youngsters and still was not able to seperate, or define himself as the primary receiver.

 

Again my point is his trade, or should I say tradeable, value. Hester has the possibility of being partially decent WR but he does have those other intangiables that other teams might want or need. That primarily being as a return man. Unfortunately he is about a year removed from it and hasn't had the chance to show his skills so his trade value is diminishing daily. As far as the WR value, it is a non-factor to other teams.

 

I think route-running has gotten to be sort of a phantom issue with Hester. His first year at WR, he had real problems with his routes, no doubt. I didn't see those problems to nearly the same extent this year. Most of the time, he was running the right route and running it correctly. Is he the most polished receiver in the world? Not by a long shot. But he's good enough.

 

OK, but he's not OUR 3rd/4th. He's our #1. Because we don't have anyone better. Saying that Hester's a "#3 receiver" makes it sound like we'd be better off bumping him down to #3 on the depth chart. By the numbers, we wouldn't...we'd be worse. Now, if you're saying that we would be better off if we could go get two or three new receivers who are better than Hester, of course we would. I mean, the Patriots would be better off if they had two or three receivers better than Randy Moss. Does that mean Randy Moss isn't their #1 receiver? Same goes for Hester, though he's no Randy Moss by a long shot. But that's all sort of beside the point, since we don't have draft picks or trade bait to get those receivers.

 

I actually did address the Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Tom Brady relationship and who you or I might think is the #1 versus how Brady looks at it. Moss produces more in the way of TD's but Welker is "looked at" a larger percentage of the time. So, who would be the #1 in that situation? I say, like another poster earlier stated, the #1 WR idea is a misnomer (he actually said "stupid").

 

And if you read the first half to this post you will see that I don't believe that the Bears are without "trade bait".

 

 

 

[nfoligno]

I saw your earlier reply post to my own and am now just getting caught up. To address that point first. As I told another poster earlier on, your interpretation of numbers are different than mine own. I too wrote down Hester's numbers and compared them to the other "main" recievers on the roster and he proved nothing extraordinary compared to them. Something else I didn't point out was that not only was he the "#1" receiver but he also had at least one year on the other youngsters and still was not able to seperate, or define himself as the primary receiver.

 

Just to jump in w/ two comments on this,

 

1. When it comes to numbers, I think one of the key numbers talked about is percentage of passes thrown his way which were caught. That does in fact imply an ability to get open. Look at Holt as an example to the opposite, just as he has been recently talked about elsewhere. Holt has lost more than just a step, and in Jax, he really struggled to get separation. That is really shown in how many of the passes thrown his way fell incomplete. Sure, some were simply bad passes, but many were also defended as he just couldn't get enough sep from the DB. Hester however was able to get open, and thus a very high percentage of passes thrown his way were caught. When Hester's numbers have been thrown out there, I think that is one of the biggest, or most important, ones to look at.

 

2. You say he has a year of experience on the other young WRs. That is true on one level, but not entirely true IMHO. I would argue other receivers on our team, while less experienced on the NFL level, are actually more experienced WRs. That is something that just doesn't get enough consideration. Hester was not a WR in college. He played some WR, but played so many other position, including even defense, that he never really developed at WR that way other WRs on our team had. Bennett entered the NFL a far more polished WR than Hester. Heck, even Knox as a rookie was a more polished WR than Hester. Hester may have been more adapted to the speed of the NFL and the playbook, but at the same time, he was also still in the process of learning to play the WR position, thus I am not sure it truly accurate to state he was more experienced than the other, younger WRs on the roster. Remember, the first year he was a Bear, he was actually considered a DB, and the 2nd year, he really only was considered a gimick WR. It was not until his 3rd season he was actually tudored to be a WR.

 

The key for me is he has continued to develop. He is still not a polished WR, but again, he is continuing to to develop, which to me shows he has not hit his ceiling yet.

 

Again my point is his trade, or should I say tradeable, value. Hester has the possibility of being partially decent WR but he does have those other intangiables that other teams might want or need. That primarily being as a return man. Unfortunately he is about a year removed from it and hasn't had the chance to show his skills so his trade value is diminishing daily. As far as the WR value, it is a non-factor to other teams.

 

IMHO, if Hester had the trade value he had a few years ago, I think many more fans would be on board w/ the idea of trading him today, but that value is gone down considerably. His value as a WR, as you said, is very minimal. He has proven he can play WR, but has not proven yet he can play at a level that would attract a ton of trade value. As a returner, he once looked like the best returner EVER, but for the last two years has looked average or below average. His trade value is simply so low that you have to really ask whether it is even worth it. Hester still has potential, both as a WR and returner, and I would argue his value to the team is greater than his trade value. That is why I think most fans are not on board w/ the idea of trading him. It isn't that he is considered an untradable player, but that is value in a trade just isn't there.

 

I actually did address the Randy Moss, Wes Welker and Tom Brady relationship and who you or I might think is the #1 versus how Brady looks at it. Moss produces more in the way of TD's but Welker is "looked at" a larger percentage of the time. So, who would be the #1 in that situation? I say, like another poster earlier stated, the #1 WR idea is a misnomer (he actually said "stupid").

 

Personally, I think the world of FF has altered the perception of a #1 WR. When someone says #1 WR today, I really think they are more talking in terms of FF. If you were to take away the FF perception, a #1 WR would simply be one that is the first read, which Hester in fact most often has been in our offense. So in that sense, he has been our #1 WR.

 

And if you read the first half to this post you will see that I don't believe that the Bears are without "trade bait".

 

I just don't see the trade bait. Hester just doesn't have the trade value. If you believed half the arguments you use to give the impression of his having trade value, why then even trade him. No, I think the rest of the league right now see's him in the same light as you, which is why you want to get rid of him, but also why other teams would not be willing to give up anything of substance for him.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

"1. When it comes to numbers, I think one of the key numbers talked about is percentage of passes thrown his way which were caught. That does in fact imply an ability to get open. Look at Holt as an example to the opposite, just as he has been recently talked about elsewhere. Holt has lost more than just a step, and in Jax, he really struggled to get separation. That is really shown in how many of the passes thrown his way fell incomplete. Sure, some were simply bad passes, but many were also defended as he just couldn't get enough sep from the DB. Hester however was able to get open, and thus a very high percentage of passes thrown his way were caught. When Hester's numbers have been thrown out there, I think that is one of the biggest, or most important, ones to look at."

 

Yes there are differences but other than TD's, their stats are almost identical. HESTER: (09) 57 / 757 yards with 58.2 avg/game and 3 TD. HOLT - (09) 51 / 722 yards with 48.1 avg / game and no TD's. You can skew this however you want but those numbers are not all that different. Again, unless you count the TD's. And even then Olsen still has a significant lead for the team with 8.

 

"2. You say he has a year of experience on the other young WRs. That is true on one level, but not entirely true IMHO. I would argue other receivers on our team, while less experienced on the NFL level, are actually more experienced WRs. That is something that just doesn't get enough consideration. Hester was not a WR in college. He played some WR, but played so many other position, including even defense, that he never really developed at WR that way other WRs on our team had. Bennett entered the NFL a far more polished WR than Hester. Heck, even Knox as a rookie was a more polished WR than Hester. Hester may have been more adapted to the speed of the NFL and the playbook, but at the same time,he was also still in the process of learning to play the WR position, thus I am not sure it truly accurate to state he was more experienced than the other, younger WRs on the roster. Remember, the first year he was a Bear, he was actually considered a DB, and the 2nd year, he really only was considered a gimick WR. It was not until his 3rd season he was actually tudored to be a WR. The key for me is he has continued to develop. He is still not a polished WR, but again, he is continuing to to develop, which to me shows he has not hit his ceiling yet."

 

I couldn't agree with you more. My point should have been taken with a bit cynicism. The fact that he is learning should bother you, as it does me. The fact that these other WR's on the roster are ACTUALLY WR's coming out of college gives me a lot of hope for coming years. As you mentioned, they need experience to the speed of the NFL and things will start to gel.

 

"IMHO, if Hester had the trade value he had a few years ago, I think many more fans would be on board w/ the idea of trading him today, but that value is gone down considerably. His value as a WR, as you said, is very minimal. He has proven he can play WR, but has not proven yet he can play at a level that would attract a ton of trade value. As a returner, he once looked like the best returner EVER, but for the last two years has looked average or below average. His trade value is simply so low that you have to really ask whether it is even worth it. Hester still has potential, both as a WR and returner, and I would argue his value to the team is greater than his trade value. That is why I think most fans are not on board w/ the idea of trading him. It isn't that he is considered an untradable player, but that is value in a trade just isn't there."

 

I totally agree, as I have posted before. The rest is speculative. Especially with Hester, as was discussed earlier.

 

"I just don't see the trade bait. Hester just doesn't have the trade value. If you believed half the arguments you use to give the impression of his having trade value, why then even trade him. No, I think the rest of the league right now see's him in the same light as you, which is why you want to get rid of him, but also why other teams would not be willing to give up anything of substance for him.".

 

Because my belief in ANY of his trade value is for his returning abilities. I don't think the Bears need three players that can blow a game open with their return game (Knox and Manning being the other two). Pair that with his "potential"

 

Now with recent news that a) Boldin could be had for a third rounder then I say do it and package Hester in it and b ) Hester might be a decent slot receiver with occasional return duties, according to Martz, I say give it a shot but not without trying option A first.

[nfoligno]

Yes there are differences but other than TD's, their stats are almost identical. HESTER: (09) 57 / 757 yards with 58.2 avg/game and 3 TD. HOLT - (09) 51 / 722 yards with 48.1 avg / game and no TD's. You can skew this however you want but those numbers are not all that different. Again, unless you count the TD's. And even then Olsen still has a significant lead for the team with 8.

 

You missed the key stat I mentioned earlier. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe Defiantgiant showed earlier the numbers where Hester caught a very high percentage of passes thrown his way while Holt caught a VERY low percentage thrown his way. That is the key stat I am pointing out. Hester was a more reliable target this past year than Holt. Further, while Hester is likely to only further improve, Holt is far more likely to continue the decline which has been taking place for several years now.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. My point should have been taken with a bit cynicism. The fact that he is learning should bother you, as it does me. The fact that these other WR's on the roster are ACTUALLY WR's coming out of college gives me a lot of hope for coming years. As you mentioned, they need experience to the speed of the NFL and things will start to gel.

 

I am not sure I agree his "learning" should bother me. Sure, ideally you want a guy to enter the NFL already knowing his position, and that isn't the case here, but that doesn't mean Hester can regardless become a good WR. He has a greater learning curve than other WRs, but that doesn't mean he can't learn. What would bother me is if he wasn't showing development.

 

Because my belief in ANY of his trade value is for his returning abilities. I don't think the Bears need three players that can blow a game open with their return game (Knox and Manning being the other two). Pair that with his "potential"

 

One, I just don't think his trade value, even as a returner, is that great anymore. He has not looked good as a returner for a couple years now, and I just don't know how much another team would be willing to trade for based on what was seen 2 or 3 years ago, ignoring more recent history.

 

Two, I agree we have other options, but (a) Hester is signed long term, while DM may be here only one more season and ( if Knox is set to become a starter, which is very possible, you have to wonder how great of a role he will have as a returner himself.

 

Now with recent news that a) Boldin could be had for a third rounder then I say do it and package Hester in it and b ) Hester might be a decent slot receiver with occasional return duties, according to Martz, I say give it a shot but not without trying option A first.

 

I commented in that thread, but there is nothing out there saying Boldin can be had for a 3rd. All that was said was Miami might offer a 3rd. Doesn't mean Az is willing to accept a 3rd. And as I said in that thread, a 3rd may be little more than a starting point. You usually don't come to the table with your best offer. If they come to the table w/ a 3rd, that could mean they are willing to go higher.

 

Maybe I am in the minorty, but I simply do not view WR as a need. I like what we have. I think we have more talent at WR than at any point I can remember. Further, I feel we have tons of FAR GREATER needs, and if we are looking to make a deal, it should be for OL, DL, CB or FS, not WR. At those other position, I feel far less secure in our current options than I do at WR.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Simply put, you don't have complete faith in Hester's ability to become a better WR. Instead of potential you say the "learning curve" is lacking.

 

 

And Holt didn't have Cutler throwing to him. Give him a one year deal, see how it works out if not...away he goes.

 

[nfoligno]

Simply put, you don't have complete faith in Hester's ability to become a better WR. Instead of potential you say the "learning curve" is lacking.

 

When did I say learning curve is lacking, or that I don't have faith. In fact, I was once a critic of the idea of Hester becoming a WR, but since have changed my opinion due to the way I feel he has shown to develop. I do not have faith he will ever become steve smith, but at the same time, I do have faith he will continue to develop and improve. He is already a quality WR, and if he continues to develop and improve, that would be something worth having.

 

And Holt didn't have Cutler throwing to him. Give him a one year deal, see how it works out if not...away he goes.

 

He didn't have Cutler, but Garard isn't an awful QB, and did have 3,600 yards. An unknown young WR did well enough w/ Garrard throwing him the ball. Sorry, but in my opinion, Holt just doesn't have it, and I simply don't think he is worth the time or money, as minimal as that may be.

 

You started the above w/ "simply put". Well, simply put, I have more faith and belief in the WRs currently on our roster than you. Simply put, I do not view WR as a position of need, but in fact, a position of strength. Simply put, I look at our team and see MANY holes which needs serious work. I want to focus on those positions. Simply put, even if he were to come in for the minimum, I would regardless rather just give the time and reps to the young players currently on our roster.

 

One final point. Anyway you slice it, I do not think we are going to have a good team this year. I view this year more as a developmental year or building block. Adding a player like Holt would do little to alter our wins/losses, and would in fact take away time from the young WRs I want to see develop this year so later, when we are an improved team, they are playing at a high level.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

When did I say learning curve is lacking, or that I don't have faith. In fact, I was once a critic of the idea of Hester becoming a WR, but since have changed my opinion due to the way I feel he has shown to develop. I do not have faith he will ever become steve smith, but at the same time, I do have faith he will continue to develop and improve. He is already a quality WR, and if he continues to develop and improve, that would be something worth having.

 

I'll give you this one, I misunderstood a remark you made. Unfortunately we don't agree on his potential. (You as a receiver, I as trade material).

 

He didn't have Cutler, but Garard isn't an awful QB, and did have 3,600 yards. An unknown young WR did well enough w/ Garrard throwing him the ball. Sorry, but in my opinion, Holt just doesn't have it, and I simply don't think he is worth the time or money, as minimal as that may be.

 

You started the above w/ "simply put". Well, simply put, I have more faith and belief in the WRs currently on our roster than you. Simply put, I do not view WR as a position of need, but in fact, a position of strength. Simply put, I look at our team and see MANY holes which needs serious work. I want to focus on those positions. Simply put, even if he were to come in for the minimum, I would regardless rather just give the time and reps to the young players currently on our roster.

 

One final point. Anyway you slice it, I do not think we are going to have a good team this year. I view this year more as a developmental year or building block. Adding a player like Holt would do little to alter our wins/losses, and would in fact take away time from the young WRs I want to see develop this year so later, when we are an improved team, they are playing at a high level.

 

I disagree with your "final point" but only time will tell on who is closer to right on that one. Speaking of testing time and waiting for results....you forgot one more "simply put"....neither of us is Jerry Angelo, Lovie Smith or Mike Martz.

[nfoligno]

Speaking of testing time and waiting for results....you forgot one more "simply put"....neither of us is Jerry Angelo, Lovie Smith or Mike Martz.

 

Well, if you want to go there, I would point out...

 

Martz has gushed about our talent at WR. You might say he has to, but I have not heard him try to say our OL is good.

 

Martz has said Hester could be a "stupid-good" slot receiver. Of all the WRs on our roster, Hester seemed to be the one Martz went out of his way to talk about and to praise the potential of.

 

Lovie is likely to give Martz the benefit of doubt.

 

Angelo is likely to at this point give the same to Lovie.

 

So if you want to talk about that trio, I would argue Hester has high value on our roster, and far greater than what his trade value would be.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Speaking of testing time and waiting for results....you forgot one more "simply put"....neither of us is Jerry Angelo, Lovie Smith or Mike Martz.

 

Well, if you want to go there, I would point out...

 

Martz has gushed about our talent at WR. You might say he has to, but I have not heard him try to say our OL is good.

 

Martz has said Hester could be a "stupid-good" slot receiver. Of all the WRs on our roster, Hester seemed to be the one Martz went out of his way to talk about and to praise the potential of.

 

Lovie is likely to give Martz the benefit of doubt.

 

Angelo is likely to at this point give the same to Lovie.

 

So if you want to talk about that trio, I would argue Hester has high value on our roster, and far greater than what his trade value would be.

 

Or it could be simple strategy pre-draft, pre-free agency and pre-trade, fluff talk. Again, time will tell.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Speaking of testing time and waiting for results....you forgot one more "simply put"....neither of us is Jerry Angelo, Lovie Smith or Mike Martz.

 

Well, if you want to go there, I would point out...

 

Martz has gushed about our talent at WR. You might say he has to, but I have not heard him try to say our OL is good.

 

Martz has said Hester could be a "stupid-good" slot receiver. Of all the WRs on our roster, Hester seemed to be the one Martz went out of his way to talk about and to praise the potential of.

 

Lovie is likely to give Martz the benefit of doubt.

 

Angelo is likely to at this point give the same to Lovie.

 

So if you want to talk about that trio, I would argue Hester has high value on our roster, and far greater than what his trade value would be.

Martz said a day ago that he has more talent on this oline than he has had in years.

[nfoligno]

Hadn't seen that. In a way though, it is probably true. His OLs in Det and SF were really bad. The group of WRs however he seemed to put more in line w/ the StL days.

 

Martz said a day ago that he has more talent on this oline than he has had in years.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Hadn't seen that. In a way though, it is probably true. His OLs in Det and SF were really bad. The group of WRs however he seemed to put more in line w/ the StL days.

He didn't say the line is good though, just that the talent was there and he raved about how he had no doubt Tice will get the line where it needs to be. I still think the Bears sign another guy for the oline though.

[ChileBear]

He didn't say the line is good though, just that the talent was there and he raved about how he had no doubt Tice will get the line where it needs to be. I still think the Bears sign another guy for the oline though.

Yeah, and Marinelli was going to put a fire under the DL last season too. And we all know how that played out. We better bring in some help on OL or it's going to be bumpy to say the least.

[defiantgiant]

On Holt vs. Hester - even if it were true that their production were equivalent (it's not, but I'll get to that in a minute) which direction is each player headed in? Ask yourself. Is Holt going to get better once he turns 34, or is he getting worse every year? Is Hester in the same kind of tailspin? No, he's getting better every year. Trading Hester and bringing in Holt would be a minor downgrade at BEST in 2010, and it would be a massive downgrade when you consider how much useful career each guy has left.

 

And considering whether their production actually was equivalent, it doesn't matter whether you look at per-game statistics or per-target, Holt was significantly worse. He got 103 passes thrown his way compared to Hester's 91, but he caught fewer than Hester, and for fewer yards. He played in 15 games compared to Hester's 13, but he had less yardage and fewer touchdowns. AG, I'm not faulting you for using per-game statistics rather than per-target, but neither one makes Holt look better than Hester. He's worse by any measure, and getting worse every year, while Hester gets better.

 

Also, as far as trading Hester for his return abilities, the last time he had a significant number of returns, he averaged just over 21 yards per return. Knox and Manning both broke 29 yards per return this year. If we wanted to trade somebody to a team that needs a return man, let's trade Manning. Nobody's going to give up a premium pick for a guy who's still developing as a receiver and hasn't got his old juice as a returner. I know what Hester used to be, just like I know what Holt used to be, but neither of them is the same player they were 2 or 3 years ago. You have to recognize what they are now. Hester's gone from a world-class returner to an up-and-coming but unfinished receiver, and Holt's gone from a household name to a guy who can't separate from DBs and couldn't get in the end zone in the span of 15 games, with over 100 chances to do it.

 

EDIT: Nfo, if you're curious, Holt's catch percentage was 49.5% this season. And you were right, that's incredibly bad for a starting wide receiver.