Holt to Chicago???

[bradjock]

Just rumors and speculation at this point.

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/02/ho...with_martz.html

[bowlingtwig]

Just rumors and speculation at this point.

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/02/ho...with_martz.html

I like this idea but I just hope that people don't think he is our answer to a #1. He had a solid year last year but he isn't the same guy.

[Pixote]

Just rumors and speculation at this point.

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/02/ho...with_martz.html

 

To bring in a WR he had better be YOUNG and DAMN GOOD or otherwise, forget it, I do not want to cut back on playing time for DA, Knox, or Bennett. Hester I like but if he truly wants to concentrate more on returning KOs & Punts, then so be it. Then we still have to see what Iglasis has to offer.

[Guest TerraTor]

Just rumors and speculation at this point.

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2010/02/ho...with_martz.html

 

 

typical thing bears would do

[AZ54]

If he replaces Rahied Davis on the bench I'd take him. If he's coming in to take reps away from the young guys who actually know how to play WR (i.e. not Davis) then I don't want him.

[Connorbear]

If he replaces Rahied Davis on the bench I'd take him. If he's coming in to take reps away from the young guys who actually know how to play WR (i.e. not Davis) then I don't want him.

Agreed 100%.

 

Peace

[Alaskan Grizzly]

The numbers that Holt had last year in Jacksonville; 51 for 757, will make Hester even that more "normal" thus, expendable.

 

Trade him (Hester) while the iron is hot.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Nah, no thanks.

[defiantgiant]

The numbers that Holt had last year in Jacksonville; 51 for 757, will make Hester even that more "normal" thus, expendable.

 

Trade him (Hester) while the iron is hot.

I don't think the iron's particularly hot. I'm not sure anybody would trade much for Hester at this point. Also, Holt's on a major decline, he's clearly not the same player he was. Unless we're going to get a Brandon Marshall-caliber receiver (which we really don't have the ammunition to do) I don't want to take playing time away from our young guys.

[bowlingtwig]

I don't think the iron's particularly hot. I'm not sure anybody would trade much for Hester at this point. Also, Holt's on a major decline, he's clearly not the same player he was. Unless we're going to get a Brandon Marshall-caliber receiver (which we really don't have the ammunition to do) I don't want to take playing time away from our young guys.

There is no way I would trade a Hester(still young and has improved every year as a WR) to make room for Holt(at the end of his career and not the same that he used to be)

[Alaskan Grizzly]

There is no way I would trade a Hester(still young and has improved every year as a WR) to make room for Holt(at the end of his career and not the same that he used to be)

 

Perhaps an explanation to my way of thinking. First off, we all agree that Hester is not (nor will he be) a #1 receiver. Waiting in the wings, and true WR's I might add, are Aromashadu, Knox, Bennett, Iglesias and even Olsen. Someone like Holt could only solidify that core as an experienced (and true) WR. Hester is more just a "maybe" than a "will be". Next, if he (Hester) stays in Chicago for just returns or gimmicky play then again the Bears have Knox and Manning more than capable to handle that.

 

What says that some team out there doesn't think that Hester could prove a missing dimension for them and not be willing to part with a 3rd or even 2nd round pick or even a player of similar value, but in another position? After all most here think the Bears are in need of an OL, FS or DL and fromwhat I hear, this years draft is chock full of pretty good FS. So why not use Hester to help buildthe future in other positions rather than follow the Lions plan of overstocking the WR position?

[defiantgiant]

Perhaps an explanation to my way of thinking. First off, we all agree that Hester is not (nor will he be) a #1 receiver. Waiting in the wings, and true WR's I might add, are Aromashadu, Knox, Bennett, Iglesias and even Olsen. Someone like Holt could only solidify that core as an experienced (and true) WR. Hester is more just a "maybe" than a "will be". Next, if he (Hester) stays in Chicago for just returns or gimmicky play then again the Bears have Knox and Manning more than capable to handle that.

 

What says that some team out there doesn't think that Hester could prove a missing dimension for them and not be willing to part with a 3rd or even 2nd round pick or even a player of similar value, but in another position? After all most here think the Bears are in need of an OL, FS or DL and fromwhat I hear, this years draft is chock full of pretty good FS. So why not use Hester to help buildthe future in other positions rather than follow the Lions plan of overstocking the WR position?

Because we don't have anyone who can replace him. Our WR position is anything BUT overstocked. It's not like we're the Lions and can afford to get rid of Roy Williams because we have Calvin Johnson. We have Devin Hester and a bunch of very, VERY unproven talent behind him.

 

The whole debate over who's a "#1" and who's not is pretty dumb: Anquan Boldin was the Cardinals' #1 until they drafted Fitzgerald. Now he's their #2. Was he a #2 all along, even when he was the best on their team and putting up 1000 yards a season? Or did he magically become "not a #1 receiver" when Fitzgerald showed up? Or do they have two #1s? If so, who's Warner's first read? Same thing with Donald Driver and Greg Jennings, or Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. When I say Hester's our #1 receiver, I mean he's the #1 because he's the best receiver on the team. Would he be the #1 receiver on the Cardinals or the Colts or the Packers? No way. But he's our #1 receiver until we get somebody better, and at this point, we don't have anyone on the roster who's proven to be better than Hester. In fact, on a per-catch and per-target basis, everybody else we have on the roster is worse. And it would be stupid to get rid of a guy because he's "not a #1 receiver" when everybody else is even worse.

 

Even if you look at conventional stats, Hester's the best we've got - he had more yards than any other Bears receiver, more yards per game than any other Bears receiver, more 75-plus-yard games than any other Bears receiver, and more catches than anybody but Olsen. Touchdowns are the only measure where anybody was better than Hester, and that just means that we should be looking to some of our other receivers in the red zone.

 

I know everybody's excited about Aromashodu, but the fact is that more than half of his total yards came in one game, playing against a significantly injured Antoine Winfield. Baltimore's secondary was very suspect, and they held him to just 2 catches for 10 yards. I'm as excited about his potential as anybody else, but he's far from proving that he's our #1 receiver over Hester, and it's WAY premature to suggest that we could afford to trade Hester away and count on Aromashodu or Knox instead.

 

Also, Holt isn't better than Hester, not at this stage in his career. Holt got 103 passes thrown his way this season, but he only managed 51 catches for 722 yards, and he didn't make it into the end zone all season. Hester did more with fewer targets and has upside, whereas Holt is already worse and clearly in decline. I'm not saying Hester is trade-proof or anything, but anything we got from him in trade would have to be spent replacing him in the receiver corps, or else we'd be improving at one position by getting worse at another.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I like this idea but I just hope that people don't think he is our answer to a #1. He had a solid year last year but he isn't the same guy.

He's a good veteran that can help the Bears on 3rd downs and help teach our WR's a lot of new things. I think he would be a nice pick-up, especially since he knows our offense.

 

And no, he wouldn't be a savior or anything along those lines. Just a solid vet to have on the squad.

[nfoligno]

In the past, I almost always was on board w/ the idea of adding a player like Holt, often using similar arguments as you present. I don't see it that way for us today though.

 

In the past, there may have been a young player or two I wanted a veteran to help with, but today, we have a larger number of good looking, young WRs. Adding a veteran at this point would do more harm than good, IMHO. Though you might argue Holt can teach them some things, at the same time, he would also be taking away playing time. You can only learn so much from the sideline. I think they may well learn a lot more if Holt were not on the team, as they would be on the field.

 

This may be a shocking idea for us bear fans, but honestly, I see so much talent at WR, I wonder how we spread it around.

 

Hester is going no where, despite what a few fans want to believe. His trade market is simply not high, and we are just not going to get value for him. He may not start next year, but he will have a significant role.

 

DA is a player many (included Cutler) wants on the field. Bennett started all year, and his development continues.

 

Knox is a playmaker who simply needs more time and snaps to develop.

 

And then we have a 3rd round 2009 rookie who couldn't get on the field, but who could be the 2010 version of Bennett.

 

I am not for spending the coin to get a stud #1, but at least then it would make more sense as that player would be an upgrade. Holt? Holt this year was simply not very good. He was thrown to a ton, but didn't get a lot of catches. A key reason is he has simply lost too much and struggled to get open. I know. I had him on my FF team as I thought he had more left in the tank, but he doesn't.

 

IMHO, adding Holt would be a similar mistake as our signing Pace. It was believed Pace still had some tread on the tires, and could teach Williams. It turned out that the tires were bare, and all he really did was hold back Williams, who didn't look good until after finally replacing Pace on the left. I think it would be similar w/ Holt. If we added him, all he would do is take away playing time for one or more of our younger WRs.

 

We did a similar move 2 years ago when we signed Booker. If we didn't have Booker on the roster, wanna bet Bennett would have played. I have no clue how good Bennett would have been, but I can't believe he would have been worse than Booker, and then he would have entered this past year more seasoned than he was. Sometimes adding a veteran to mentor makes sense, but I don't think that is the case for us at WR.

 

He's a good veteran that can help the Bears on 3rd downs and help teach our WR's a lot of new things. I think he would be a nice pick-up, especially since he knows our offense.

 

And no, he wouldn't be a savior or anything along those lines. Just a solid vet to have on the squad.

 

[ChileBear]

Sell written Nfo, and about friggin time we start realizing that our young WRs are our strength. No, I would not bring Holt in. Better to let Cutler develop more raport with the returning group and build for the future. Spend the $ on OL or DE.

['TD']

We did a similar move 2 years ago when we signed Booker. If we didn't have Booker on the roster, wanna bet Bennett would have played. I have no clue how good Bennett would have been, but I can't believe he would have been worse than Booker, and then he would have entered this past year more seasoned than he was. Sometimes adding a veteran to mentor makes sense, but I don't think that is the case for us at WR.

 

I think Holt and Booker are apples and oranges. Booker was great in Chicago 10 years ago, but he was never a great WR.

 

Holt is a potential HoF WR, that would be coming to play with a coach that made him. After his rookie year, Holt had over 1300 years a season for 6 consecutive seasons with Martz until Martz was ousted.

[nfoligno]

In football years, that was a long time ago. Holt may have done great under Martz, but was also more in his prime. Now, due to age and injuries, he has lost a step (or 10) and is simply no longer the WR he once was. Yes, he was FAR greater than Booker ever was, but that doesn't change the fact that we are regardless talking in past tense.

 

Today, he is simply a mediocre WR who struggles to get separation. Today, I think we are better options on the roster, and would much rather we continue to develop of give those young WRs the reps rather than put them on the bench in favor of Holt.

 

I realize the coaches are going to be thinking more about 2010, but we need to be thinking more long term than that. We have some really talented, young WRs. We need to be developing them. That is a new concept in Chicago, but one we really need to wrap our minds around if we want Cutler to be the franchise QB we hoped when we traded for him.

 

Look at Cutler's last year in Denver. What would have happened if the team, rather than give Royal the opportunity, signed some older veteran. Cutler may have been able to work w/ that veteran, but wasn't Denver better off getting Royal the reps.

 

I think Holt and Booker are apples and oranges. Booker was great in Chicago 10 years ago, but he was never a great WR.

 

Holt is a potential HoF WR, that would be coming to play with a coach that made him. After his rookie year, Holt had over 1300 years a season for 6 consecutive seasons with Martz until Martz was ousted.

['TD']

In football years, that was a long time ago. Holt may have done great under Martz, but was also more in his prime. Now, due to age and injuries, he has lost a step (or 10) and is simply no longer the WR he once was. Yes, he was FAR greater than Booker ever was, but that doesn't change the fact that we are regardless talking in past tense.

 

Today, he is simply a mediocre WR who struggles to get separation. Today, I think we are better options on the roster, and would much rather we continue to develop of give those young WRs the reps rather than put them on the bench in favor of Holt.

 

I realize the coaches are going to be thinking more about 2010, but we need to be thinking more long term than that. We have some really talented, young WRs. We need to be developing them. That is a new concept in Chicago, but one we really need to wrap our minds around if we want Cutler to be the franchise QB we hoped when we traded for him.

 

Look at Cutler's last year in Denver. What would have happened if the team, rather than give Royal the opportunity, signed some older veteran. Cutler may have been able to work w/ that veteran, but wasn't Denver better off getting Royal the reps.

 

They had Darrell Jackson, Brandon Stokely, and maybe other older WR's on the team. I don't follow the Bronco's much but Royal was better and played.

 

Why be scared to add Holt and give him a shot? If he makes the team better, then awesome. If the other WR's are better then let them play.

[nfoligno]

Because I don't trust our coaches.

 

No way you can tell me Pace was the best tackle and deserved to start (and stay there) at LT.

 

No way you can tell me Omiyale was the most deserving OG. Every report I read said Beekman not only won the job, but that Omiyale looked lost as often as not in camp. Yet there he was, starting at OG game one.

 

Lets consider WR. We signed Booker, and as much of a fan as I was/am of his, he was horrible. He didn't play well in camp, yet was given the nod regardless, and stunk it up during the season. Yet despite how poorly he played, our staff would simply not insert our younger players.

 

I don't trust this staff, especailly now that Martz is running the offense. IMHO, if we signed Holt, he would play. Period. It wouldn't matter if he earned the job or not.

 

And you say, what would it hurt? Okay, lets say for argument sake Holt does play decent. Well enough to earn playing time. Okay, great. Good for him. That might help the team a tiny, tiny bit in the short term, but I would argue it hurts far more in the long run. We have plenty of talent at WR. I just can not understand this mentality of not giving them a chance to develop. What the hell is the point of using all these draft picks on these kids if we are just going to continue to sign over the hill players to play instead. Yea, those over the hill players may be better initially, but how will the youth ever develop and improve if they are not allowed a chance to play?

 

They had Darrell Jackson, Brandon Stokely, and maybe other older WR's on the team. I don't follow the Bronco's much but Royal was better and played.

 

Why be scared to add Holt and give him a shot? If he makes the team better, then awesome. If the other WR's are better then let them play.

 

['TD']

You're citing last years staffs mistakes and adding them to a completely different staff.

 

Marty Booker had 14 receptions his second run with the Bears. I'm not really sure he is a good example for holding players back. In fact, I'd argue Johnny Knox last year negates this arguement that Booker held Bennett back anyways. Knox played as a rookie. Iglesias, like Bennett, sat his rookie season because he wasn't ready.

 

Look at the WR's you're worried about him holding back.

 

1) Martz has already called Hester his Az Hakim.

 

2) Johnny Knox is a completely different WR than Holt, the demotion of Hester will effect him more than Holt.

 

3) Bennett has shown no potential to be more than a fill in average starter.

 

4) DA had a couple good games that may have been flukes. However, with the supposed demotion of Hester, he'll have every opportunity to fight for a starting spot with Bennett/Holt.

 

5) Iglesias couldn't play when they were playing no one with experience. He also looked bad in camp last year, and may not make the team.

 

So basically to me, you are arguing that Holt might hold back DA or Bennett. If DA is the real deal he'll star, period. Bennett would back up him and Holt, which is what his job in the league will probably be for most of his career. If he's not the real deal, then Bennett will start and no one is getting held back at all.

[madlithuanian]

Last I checked Smith and JA are still in charge.

 

This is not a copletely different staff. Just because martz is here, do you really think Smith and JA will see the light?

 

 

You're citing last years staffs mistakes and adding them to a completely different staff.

 

[AZ54]

Because I don't trust our coaches.

 

No way you can tell me Pace was the best tackle and deserved to start (and stay there) at LT.

 

........

 

I don't trust this staff, especailly now that Martz is running the offense. IMHO, if we signed Holt, he would play. Period. It wouldn't matter if he earned the job or not.

 

I actually feel totally different with Martz on board. You know in the past few years I've felt the same way about Lovie giving veterans far too much respect and playing time when it wasn't earned. Heck, I wanted to cut Booker before that season started. Martz is a bit different though because I think he realizes he has little time to get this right and he needs to invest that in the players that will provide the best performance in the second half of the season. I certainly can see him thinking he'd have more success early with Holt but that will only be very limited because he just doesn't have the speed Martz covets. I think Martz knows he has to find the best athletes and the best roles for each one and get them in that role NOW and study up.

 

This is why we are seeing him be so public so quickly about role changes for Hester, Olsen, Knox and even creating higher expectations for the Oline. With Cutler it's a bit different in that he has talked him up but has yet to create expectations other than saying he likely won't be as good as Warner. I see that as a challenge to Cutler.

[Mongo3451]

You're citing last years staffs mistakes and adding them to a completely different staff.

 

Marty Booker had 14 receptions his second run with the Bears. I'm not really sure he is a good example for holding players back. In fact, I'd argue Johnny Knox last year negates this arguement that Booker held Bennett back anyways. Knox played as a rookie. Iglesias, like Bennett, sat his rookie season because he wasn't ready.

 

Look at the WR's you're worried about him holding back.

 

1) Martz has already called Hester his Az Hakim.

 

2) Johnny Knox is a completely different WR than Holt, the demotion of Hester will effect him more than Holt.

 

3) Bennett has shown no potential to be more than a fill in average starter.

 

4) DA had a couple good games that may have been flukes. However, with the supposed demotion of Hester, he'll have every opportunity to fight for a starting spot with Bennett/Holt.

 

5) Iglesias couldn't play when they were playing no one with experience. He also looked bad in camp last year, and may not make the team.

 

So basically to me, you are arguing that Holt might hold back DA or Bennett. If DA is the real deal he'll star, period. Bennett would back up him and Holt, which is what his job in the league will probably be for most of his career. If he's not the real deal, then Bennett will start and no one is getting held back at all.

I have no problem with adding Holt as long as he is guaranteed nothing. Whatever spot he earns, he earns. I, like NFO, Madlith and others have no trust in the staff to make the right decision on this though. I think adding Holt would be a positive influence on our younger guys, plus keep them hungry to pull their weight. If they have no competition for a roster or starting spot. They could prove to be a little lax in the off season and camp. If they are going to learn Martzs' complex system they need to 1) be sharp and competetive, 2) use Holt as a mentor.