Free agency-who?

[azbearsfan]

That's kind of my point, but your logic fails. You think you're using it against me, but you're not.

 

What my point is, comparing your team to another, or pieces/players to another, is not a legit way to evaluate your own team. Saying, "The other teams have great WRs!" is not a valid way to analyze what the Bears have on their roster, nor is it a proper method to determine what strengths and weaknesses are. And given the parity in the league, simply looking at a team's record or divisional record is not a very bright way to determine what the team's needs are.

 

The original comment was about "competing in the division." Given that the Bears won the division and only had one divisional loss, it makes the reasoning (i.e. gotta have the prototypical #1 WR to compete in the division) illogical.

 

 

Not if you take into account improvements made by the other teams. You could argue that the Packers are better than us and the Lions have made enough improvement to challenge us our spot. Therefore, adding a #1 receiver could make it true that it would allow us to "compete in the division".

 

After reading multiple posts of defiant, he specifies many different reasons why adding a number one receiver would help Cutler and the offense. His offering of comparisons to the other teams' divisions was not, in my mind, reasoning on why we need a number one receiver. i.e. he wasn't saying we need to get a number 1 because the Lions have Calvin Johnson. He was just saying that if we get one, our receivers would be comparible to the other teams.

 

So, would a #1 receiver help the team? (I like the Steve Smith idea, myself) yup

 

Do we need one to compete? We might, depending on how the off season pans out for us and the other divisional teams.

 

Do we need another lineman to compete? same answer as above

 

Do we need a corner to compete? same answer as above

[jason]

Not if you take into account improvements made by the other teams. You could argue that the Packers are better than us and the Lions have made enough improvement to challenge us our spot. Therefore, adding a #1 receiver could make it true that it would allow us to "compete in the division".

 

After reading multiple posts of defiant, he specifies many different reasons why adding a number one receiver would help Cutler and the offense. His offering of comparisons to the other teams' divisions was not, in my mind, reasoning on why we need a number one receiver. i.e. he wasn't saying we need to get a number 1 because the Lions have Calvin Johnson. He was just saying that if we get one, our receivers would be comparible to the other teams.

So, would a #1 receiver help the team? (I like the Steve Smith idea, myself) yup

 

Do we need one to compete? We might, depending on how the off season pans out for us and the other divisional teams.

 

Do we need another lineman to compete? same answer as above

 

Do we need a corner to compete? same answer as above

 

The last part essentially means we're in agreement. I don't necessarily believe we might need a prototypical #1 WR based upon what the other teams in the division do. Of course getting upgrades at every position would help the team. If the Bears managed to trade for Adrian Peterson, Peyton Manning, and Calvin Johnson I'd be all for it. But is it necessary to compete? I don't think so. I'd much rather see the latter two additions to the team instead of seeing a WR who would probably have similar problems to the guys last year (i.e. not enough time to run all the possible routes).

[defiantgiant]

What my point is, comparing your team to another, or pieces/players to another, is not a legit way to evaluate your own team. Saying, "The other teams have great WRs!" is not a valid way to analyze what the Bears have on their roster, nor is it a proper method to determine what strengths and weaknesses are. And given the parity in the league, simply looking at a team's record or divisional record is not a very bright way to determine what the team's needs are.

 

The original comment was about "competing in the division." Given that the Bears won the division and only had one divisional loss, it makes the reasoning (i.e. gotta have the prototypical #1 WR to compete in the division) illogical.

You're putting words in my mouth, dude. I'm not suggesting that every time the Packers or Lions upgrade a position, the Bears need to keep up with the Joneses or else they'll lose the division. What I'm talking about is specific to the passing game.

 

Yes, the Bears won the division last year, but our offense ranked 30th in the league, and most of the problem was that we couldn't win in the passing game. It's very hard to win games if you can't consistently get big gains through the air. The biggest part of that problem was pass-protection, but the next biggest part was the receivers. The Bears invested in better protection, now they need to invest in better receivers.

 

Failing to invest means another year of a pared-down, conservative offense and relying on the defense to keep every game close. To me, that's a bad strategy, and the fact that they got away with it this year doesn't mean it will continue to work in the future. You're saying that we don't need good receivers to compete in the division next year, because we won the division this year without them. I'm saying that, as a general rule, building a team that way means that you're not built to come back when you're down a score or two, especially not when the teams you're playing against can pile up a lead in a hurry (which at least two teams in our division can.) Does that mean that you'll never win against a team that can throw the ball? Nope. Does it mean that it's impossible to win a division title? Nope. Does it mean you're at a competitive disadvantage against those teams? Absolutely.

 

The Bears won the division last season despite being at a disadvantage in the passing game. That's awesome, but I would rather fix the disadvantage than hope that we win in spite of it for another season. Even teams with glaring flaws can find a way to win some games; it doesn't change the fact that those flaws make it harder to compete.

 

I agree that pass protection was their biggest problem, and they're not done fixing it just because they picked Carimi. They could still use another starter at guard. But it's not like they have to choose between getting a guard or getting a receiver. In fact, in my original post, I was suggesting that they do both. Even in the games (mostly toward the end of the season) where the line bought Cutler some time, the passing game tended to misfire. Knox and Hester aren't reliable enough to be go-to targets, and Bennett is reliable as hell but he doesn't make big plays. They need to get a #1 guy, or else we'll be a team that's built to play conservative in a division full of teams that are built to score fast.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Nowhere did I say I actually WANT Sims Walker.

 

I just said it's a possibility because he still has upside, he's still on the right side of 30, and he'll likely be relatively cheap.

[jason]

You're putting words in my mouth, dude. I'm not suggesting that every time the Packers or Lions upgrade a position, the Bears need to keep up with the Joneses or else they'll lose the division. What I'm talking about is specific to the passing game.

 

Yes, the Bears won the division last year, but our offense ranked 30th in the league, and most of the problem was that we couldn't win in the passing game. It's very hard to win games if you can't consistently get big gains through the air. The biggest part of that problem was pass-protection, but the next biggest part was the receivers. The Bears invested in better protection, now they need to invest in better receivers.

 

Failing to invest means another year of a pared-down, conservative offense and relying on the defense to keep every game close. To me, that's a bad strategy, and the fact that they got away with it this year doesn't mean it will continue to work in the future. You're saying that we don't need good receivers to compete in the division next year, because we won the division this year without them. I'm saying that, as a general rule, building a team that way means that you're not built to come back when you're down a score or two, especially not when the teams you're playing against can pile up a lead in a hurry (which at least two teams in our division can.) Does that mean that you'll never win against a team that can throw the ball? Nope. Does it mean that it's impossible to win a division title? Nope. Does it mean you're at a competitive disadvantage against those teams? Absolutely.

 

The Bears won the division last season despite being at a disadvantage in the passing game. That's awesome, but I would rather fix the disadvantage than hope that we win in spite of it for another season. Even teams with glaring flaws can find a way to win some games; it doesn't change the fact that those flaws make it harder to compete.

 

I agree that pass protection was their biggest problem, and they're not done fixing it just because they picked Carimi. They could still use another starter at guard. But it's not like they have to choose between getting a guard or getting a receiver. In fact, in my original post, I was suggesting that they do both. Even in the games (mostly toward the end of the season) where the line bought Cutler some time, the passing game tended to misfire. Knox and Hester aren't reliable enough to be go-to targets, and Bennett is reliable as hell but he doesn't make big plays. They need to get a #1 guy, or else we'll be a team that's built to play conservative in a division full of teams that are built to score fast.

 

I didn't put words in your mouth. I even quoted you. "I think you're right that they need a top tier starting WR to compete in this division." There is no ambiguity in that statement. In this subsequent explanation, however, you've done a much better job of explaining yourself.

[defiantgiant]

I didn't put words in your mouth. I even quoted you. "I think you're right that they need a top tier starting WR to compete in this division." There is no ambiguity in that statement. In this subsequent explanation, however, you've done a much better job of explaining yourself.

Hey man, I owe you an apology. I went back and re-read that first post, and I can see how it wasn't super clear. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[jason]

Hey man, I owe you an apology. I went back and re-read that first post, and I can see how it wasn't super clear. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

No worries...

 

Now we can get back to debating whether or not a "true #1 WR" (whatever that really means) would help an offense that has to pick Cutler off the ground every other play. I don't really think it's necessary, because I believe the combo of Bennett-Knox-Hester (and assorted cast) could put up huge, St. Louis type numbers if Cutler had time to stand in the pocket and hit on the various routes in the fully implemented Martz offense.

[madlithuanian]

If I could, I'd buy both you guys a beer! Good arguments, and disagreements. And it all ends well! Kudos for keeping is classy Chicago! (due respect to Ron B...)

 

This is why I love this board!

 

 

PS - I think we still need s #1 WR...but I do agree that better protection will give better results. I just want to go from a C to an A with a #1, vs going to what I think would be a B with what we have now.

 

No worries...

 

Now we can get back to debating whether or not a "true #1 WR" (whatever that really means) would help an offense that has to pick Cutler off the ground every other play. I don't really think it's necessary, because I believe the combo of Bennett-Knox-Hester (and assorted cast) could put up huge, St. Louis type numbers if Cutler had time to stand in the pocket and hit on the various routes in the fully implemented Martz offense.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

No worries...

 

Now we can get back to debating whether or not a "true #1 WR" (whatever that really means) would help an offense that has to pick Cutler off the ground every other play. I don't really think it's necessary, because I believe the combo of Bennett-Knox-Hester (and assorted cast) could put up huge, St. Louis type numbers if Cutler had time to stand in the pocket and hit on the various routes in the fully implemented Martz offense.

I've always disagreed with you on this. Neither of those guys are a #1. Not to mention, it is becoming more an more evident that we are going to use Hester less as a wideout to make him more special as a return man. Basically I think we are going to look at using Hester in a limited number of offensive snaps and my hope is it actually makes him a more effective wide-out as well.

 

Knox will never be a #1, imo, but he has a shot at being a #2 and Bennett is a steady slot receiver/3rd down target whom I like a lot.

 

The thing is, nowhere on that list is a #1, so if you don't have that guy that can be a #1, you are instead pushing everyone into roles that to me, they just don't have the ability to succeed in and that isn't a good thing.

 

Bears need a wideout, I just don't think that wideout is Rice. I'd go hard for Santonio Holmes. Seems like a great fit for the Martz system and would make our corps significantly better.

[defiantgiant]

No worries...

 

Now we can get back to debating whether or not a "true #1 WR" (whatever that really means) would help an offense that has to pick Cutler off the ground every other play. I don't really think it's necessary, because I believe the combo of Bennett-Knox-Hester (and assorted cast) could put up huge, St. Louis type numbers if Cutler had time to stand in the pocket and hit on the various routes in the fully implemented Martz offense.

 

Well, when I say a #1 receiver, I'm talking about either a guy who can consistently get open on any kind of route or a guy who consistently fights for the ball in coverage (ideally both, but I think you can get by with one or the other.) And either way, he's got be able to beat the jam and should catch at least 55-65% of the passes that come his way. Basically, I want a guy who a defense can't easily take out of the game and who's reliable enough to be Cutler's go-to target. I don't think the Bears have that guy right now, and I just don't know if they can get by without one.

 

Knox and Hester can get open down the field, but neither of them are reliable enough catching the ball to be the go-to guy. Green Bay proved in Week 17 that one good press-man CB can take Knox out of the game entirely, without any help. Tramon Williams just negated him, and Sam Shields gave him some problems, too (mostly because Shields is fast enough that Knox's speed doesn't give him an advantage.) I don't think Hester is as easy to take away, but in 2009 teams had a lot of success using bracket coverage against him. Neither of them is particularly good at winning contested catches - it's especially glaring in Knox's case - and neither of them is great at getting off a jam. Both of them are really useful weapons, but you'd want to build your offense so you could live with it if a team took them out of the equation, because it's not that hard to do.

 

Bennett is definitely reliable enough, but he doesn't demand any special attention from a defense. Unfortunately, he just doesn't have the speed or burst to win against a starting corner: it seems like he's got a guy in his hip pocket all the time. I really like him as a dependable slot receiver, where he can get matched up on a linebacker or a safety, but he's not an impact player.

 

None of our WRs is really a matchup problem, except maybe for a team that has really slow corners and doesn't jam them at the line. Both Knox and Bennett can be covered by one guy man-to-man, and Hester can be pretty well contained with safety help. Green Bay can do it without even using Charles Woodson, which frees them up to have Woodson shadow Greg Olsen all game, like he's been doing lately.

 

I agree with DBDB that Santonio Holmes would be a nice fit: he's got a little bit of Torry Holt to him, although he's not quite the catching machine that Holt was. Still, he's got similar speed and athleticism to Hester/Knox, but he's a more complete receiver than either of them. If the RFA tender sticks, though, it'd take a 1st and a 3rd to sign him away from the Jets. I think that's more than the Bears can afford to part with. If he somehow hits the open market, on the other hand, Angelo better be the first guy on the phone.

[jason]

I've always disagreed with you on this. Neither of those guys are a #1. Not to mention, it is becoming more an more evident that we are going to use Hester less as a wideout to make him more special as a return man. Basically I think we are going to look at using Hester in a limited number of offensive snaps and my hope is it actually makes him a more effective wide-out as well.

 

Knox will never be a #1, imo, but he has a shot at being a #2 and Bennett is a steady slot receiver/3rd down target whom I like a lot.

 

The thing is, nowhere on that list is a #1, so if you don't have that guy that can be a #1, you are instead pushing everyone into roles that to me, they just don't have the ability to succeed in and that isn't a good thing.

 

Bears need a wideout, I just don't think that wideout is Rice. I'd go hard for Santonio Holmes. Seems like a great fit for the Martz system and would make our corps significantly better.

 

And I'm fine with the disagreement. The thing I have to ask, however, is "what's a #1?" In the Bears offense, we don't know because there isn't time to run 5 step drops when Cutler is getting hit on most 3 step drops. And 7 step drops are out of the question. Go look at some Warner highlights with the Rams. He was CONSTANTLY in 5 step drops, and there was a ton of time in the pocket. Did he get hit? Absolutely. But there were equal amounts of standing in the pocket surveying the field types of plays. Back to the #1 issue...

 

Hester - Not a #1 because his route running isn't polished, has questionable hands at times, and will focus on ST.

Bennett - Not a #1 because he's not fast enough to run away, not quick enough to consistently separate, and his routes aren't Marvin Harrison sharp.

Knox - This is where I disagree. If this guy just toughens up mentally a bit (i.e. doesn't quit on routes, doesn't run incorrect routes), then I believe he could be just as much a #1 as someone like Steve Smith.

 

Let's look at Knox for a second.

1 - Speed

2 - Quick Burst

3 - Adequate routes

4 - Good hands

 

That combination says #1 to me. The Bears OL just has to consistently give Cutler enough time to work in more plays. There isn't a single #1 WR in NFL history who made a living on consistently getting open on 3-step routes. But to reply to defiantgiant, the fact that he can sometimes be shut down at the line is worrying...which is why he's not a compete #1 yet.

 

Last but not least, I thought you wanted a #1?! What does Santonio Holmes have to do with this? Hell, Knox had more yards than him last year. I don't believe Holmes is anywhere this idea of a #1 WR.

[DGBears]

Ill make this short and sweet... I know its not a glaring need but as an undrafted free agent i would LOVE to see the Bears take a look at John Clay, the running back out of Wisconsin. He was a huge bulldozer horse of a running back. I would love to see if he could catch on and give Forte a rest every now and then and use his punishing running style to wear down defenses and of course on the goal line. Just a wish of mine.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Can a #1 WR help? Duh, but I'd focus on finding some OL who can keep $100m upright.

[defiantgiant]

But to reply to defiantgiant, the fact that he can sometimes be shut down at the line is worrying...which is why he's not a compete #1 yet.

Yeah, Knox certainly has the potential to develop into a #1. I just don't see that he's done it yet, and I think there's a significant chance that he won't. He's got a lot to work on: he needs to learn to fight for the ball in traffic, run better routes inside the hashes, and beat the jam consistently. It's definitely possible that he fixes all that, but it's not a sure thing. As it stands right now, he reminds me a LOT of Bernard Berrian, and Berrian was just a deep threat, not a #1 guy. Knox is better, for sure, but he's weak in all the same areas: not very physical in jump-ball situations, too easy to bump off his route, mostly effective on go/post routes, etc.

 

Also, if the Bears brought in a #1 guy, it's not like Knox wouldn't benefit from that. His workload probably wouldn't decrease from this year: he only got thrown to 99 times, and Martz's offenses almost always give the top two receivers at least 100 targets each. Plus, Knox would get to see more #2 corners and less safety help over the top, which might make corners more reluctant to jam him, in case they get burned. I think Knox could really shine in a complementary role to a #1 guy, and there's no reason that he couldn't continue to develop, too.

 

Last but not least, I thought you wanted a #1?! What does Santonio Holmes have to do with this? Hell, Knox had more yards than him last year. I don't believe Holmes is anywhere this idea of a #1 WR.

Come on, man. Just looking at last season's yards doesn't remotely tell the whole story. Holmes had a four-game suspension last season. He only played 12 games, with only 10 starts. There's no question in my mind that he'd have had over 1000 yards if he'd started all 16 games: his average yards/game once he was starting tells you that much. And that's despite the fact that he was moving to a new team, learning a new offense, and working with a sub-par QB in Mark Sanchez.

 

The last time he started 16 games, in 2009, he had 79 catches for 1,248 yards. Pittsburgh actually threw to Holmes more often than they did to Hines Ward - to me, that's the best indicator of who the #1 guy is.

 

But it's not about numbers, ultimately. Just watching the guy play, he plays like he could be Chicago's #1 receiver. He can get off the line and get open against a team's top corner, he can break off big plays when his team needs it, and (most of all) he makes some incredibly difficult catches to help his QB out. He's got to be in the top 5 boundary receivers in the league - he brings in passes on the sideline and in the back of the end zone that almost nobody else could. In an offense like Martz's, one that features a lot of corner routes and out routes, Holmes would be very valuable.

 

The whole idea behind the corner and the out is that, while they're difficult catches for the receiver to make in-bounds, they protect the QB by placing the ball out of the DB's reach. When you're throwing those routes, the receiver's always going to be positioned between the DB and the ball, so it's a play that's hard to take away. As long as you have a WR like Holmes who can haul them in, it's a big play that only risks an incompletion, not a turnover.

 

Every offense needs something to hang their hat on, a play or a concept that they can run when they need a 1st down and can't afford to have a turnover. Cutler-to-Holmes on a corner route could be that play for the Bears. If you look at Martz's playbook from St. Louis, a lot of his favorite passing concepts feature the corner route (7 route) prominently. The "middle read" is (unless I'm wrong) a 3-receiver set where the X and Z both run 7 routes and the slot receiver runs a post/cross option route. The corner route crops up everywhere: smash-7, flat-7, 7-8 combo. According to Bowen, that flat-7 combo is Martz's #1 call for 3rd and 7-10 yards. That's exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about: when the running game stalls on 1st and 2nd, and you need an intermediate-depth play.

 

Right now the Bears really don't have a bread-and-butter play like that. Even when the line bought Cutler some time, there was just no intermediate passing game: sometimes Knox could get over the top, but their only reliable passing plays were short throws to Bennett or Forte, and those won't always go for 1st-down yardage on 3rd and long. Improving the pass protection is a big first step, but I think they'll still need a target who can reliably make plays at that intermediate level to put together a balanced passing attack.

 

I think Holmes would be a really nice fit as a #1. The only question is whether they'd be able to get him, and that's a big question. If the Bears could find a way to sign him, I think you'd see a big improvement from Cutler and our passing game.

[balta1701-A]

Chargers are after Steve Smith.

The Carolina Panthers star is reportedly unhappy in Carolina -- even to the point of cleaning out his locker, putting his house on the market and letting it be known that he would like a trade to the Chargers, Oakland Raiders or Baltimore Ravens. The Panther are known to want to part ways with the receiver, who has three times been named an All-Pro but was also suspended two games by Carolina for a training camp altercation with a teammate in 2008.

 

The Chargers’ interest, according to people with knowledge of the situation, can be characterized as monitoring and wait-and-see. That is comparable to how they went about signing free agent safety Bob Sanders in March, letting other teams woo Sanders before making an offer to a player who wanted to be a Charger.

 

Teams are not allowed to conduct player business during the ongoing NFL lockout. But the Panthers were known to be shopping Smith prior to the league’s shutdown on March 11.

[LT2_3]

I have to say that I'm impressed guys. This is the closest I've seen people getting to a definition of a #1 WR. I think that the problem generally in this sort of discussion is that everyone agrees that we need one, but usually people can't agree on the traits. See, in my book, a #1 WR doesn't need to stretch the field (although it's nice if they can) but a #1 WR needs to be able to at least move the chains ala Anquan Boldin in his prime. That requires not only a laundry list of moves that allows them to get off the line and get open, but also a relationship with his QB so that they both know what the other is thinking in any given situation to allow those key 3rd down conversions.

 

So, while it's important that a receiver doesn't get jammed up at the line, it's not as important that they run precise and textbook routes - as long as the QB knows where he will be eventually. The important thing is consistency. So if a WR is running a 10 yard button hook, it doesn't matter if they run inside or outside a jam, or whether or not they run in a straight line. Heck, they don't even need to get to a spot and come back for the ball - as long as the coverage dictates his moves, his QB sees those moves, and they both adjust accordingly.

 

As for the WRs on the roster, I think Knox has some upside if he can build up his body a bit and get stronger. The time on the field with Cutler and an improved Oline should help loads with the intangibles. It's just the "tangible" he really needs to work on is changing himself from a fast skinny guy, to a guy that can keep from getting out-muscled. Bennett has some upside too. I forget which game it was precisely, but he had been out injured for a few weeks and came back with a vengeance. Now maybe it was because he had been out a few weeks and the other team hadn't game planned for him, but he was where he was supposed to be and making catches all over the place. That tells me he's capable of being a solid #2 - and we can make a go of it with a bunch of #2s even though it's not optimal.

 

I'm not too hopeful that any FA WR we bring in will be able to succeed as the #1 WR that we want. The chemistry and unspoken communication required between the QB and WR makes it problematic. If you were to make a list of #1 WRs and then subtract the receivers that excel due to their communication with their specific QB, you MIGHT have a handful of guys if you're lucky. Listing the guys in the league right now that might possibly be able to step in and make a significant difference, there's Greg Jennings, Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald. What do those guys have in common? They've all put up great stats with multiple QBs. The only other one even close is Reggie Wayne, and he's getting old and I'm not convinced he would play at anywhere near the same level without Peyton Manning throwing him the ball.

 

So, could Santonio Holmes be a guy that fits the #1 role for us? Maybe possibly, but if he actually HAS those portable skills that are independent of the QB, then he's probably not making it out of NY and we don't really have a shot at him anyway.

[AZ54]

I not sure we need a #1 WR so much as we just need a bigger WR who can get off the line quickly to the same spot on a 3 step drop play after play and make the tough catches in traffic. Of the group we have Bennett is the best at this. Our smaller WRs (Hester, Knox, Davis) just can't do that consistently enough to make those plays work and their ability to get open downfield on 5 and 7 step drops is negated by the poor Oline play. I used to think Iglesias could be that guy for us but he just never got it going and I don't know why.

[jason]

I've always disagreed with you on this. Neither of those guys are a #1. Not to mention, it is becoming more an more evident that we are going to use Hester less as a wideout to make him more special as a return man. Basically I think we are going to look at using Hester in a limited number of offensive snaps and my hope is it actually makes him a more effective wide-out as well.

 

Knox will never be a #1, imo, but he has a shot at being a #2 and Bennett is a steady slot receiver/3rd down target whom I like a lot.

 

The thing is, nowhere on that list is a #1, so if you don't have that guy that can be a #1, you are instead pushing everyone into roles that to me, they just don't have the ability to succeed in and that isn't a good thing.

 

Bears need a wideout, I just don't think that wideout is Rice. I'd go hard for Santonio Holmes. Seems like a great fit for the Martz system and would make our corps significantly better.

 

Knox is ALREADY a #2, at worst. I'd say he's more of a 1.5.

You've pegged Bennett correctly, even though I honestly believe he's a 2.5.

 

I obviously give the "rankings" in jest as a way to say that each player above is better than the slotted area into which everyone wants to put him.

 

And I that's the problem with the Bears' WRs. None of them can step up into the roles that we'd like them to step up into. Whether that's play design, QB decision, OL protection, or something else, they are currently hindered from becoming the receivers they could be. This goes right back to what Muhsin Muhammad said, "Chicago is where receivers go to die." But since Muhammad there have been multiple changes, so the axiom shouldn't hold true anymore. Should it?

 

This is what helps to shape my OL, OL, OL thoughts for the past few years. I just don't think it can consistently be the WRs. It's something else. I see talent in the Bears' WR corp, but it never seems to shine through.

 

Now if we could put Bennett's hands/toughness on/in Knox, or give Knox's speed to Bennett, then we'd be talking.

[jason]

Quick thoughts on Santonio Holmes:

 

1) How can any of you guys want Holmes and in the same breath (or in a previous post) get all bent out of shape about the possibility of Moss or TO. Hell, if we want a #1, it's Moss. He has a proven track record in games, and got screwed around last year. I'd rather take the guy with more talent if we're going to pick up a guy with problems off the field.

2) Is Holmes really all that reliable? Everything I can find shows that he's got somewhat unreliable hands and a case of the drops. He's not the worst in the league, but he's certainly not the best. (I realize that drops correlates, to some extent, to the number of targets). Iffy hands doesn't sound like #1 WR stuff to me.

 

Clearly "number of targets" and "team leader" data aren't reliable, because there are a ton of other factors to measure (e.g. opponent, type of offense, type of defenses faced, number of targets, team's record, team's scoring, etc.). But let's put it another way: If this were a fantasy football draft, is he even in the top 10 WRs? Top 15? The fact that there is guaranteed pause tells me he's not really a true #1. I'm not seeing the consistency spoken of in this thread. I'm not seeing the reliability spoken of in this thread. The fact is, he is an above average WR who has one or two big games each year, and disappears in other games during the year. Of course, the same applies to Knox.

 

STATS

 

% of Catches Per Target

Over the last three years - when Holmes has been considered a #1 WR, which is based primarily on his # of targets (2010:95, 2009:138,2008:114) - he has 40 total regular season games and 181 catches. Right off the bat we have the following:

 

% of Catches Per Target = 52% (By comparison, Knox - if he's the #1 WR for the Bears - has 54%.)

 

Small/Medium/Large Games

Small = Less than 5 catches

Medium = 5 or 6 catches

Large = More than 6 catches

 

Holmes: 47.5%, 37.5%, 15%, respectively.

Knox: 76%, 24%, 0%, respectively.

 

This leads to the concept that Knox is shut down more easily than Holmes, but it's a far too simplistic rubric. Again, we could point to a variety of reasons for this difference.

 

% of QB Completions

Holmes - 2010:24%, 2009:23%

Knox - 2010:19%,2009:14%

 

Now, this could be taken multiple ways. It could be an indication of QB/WR trust, or perhaps a way to determine if the QB spreads the ball around a bit more. Of note, however, is that over the last two years, the Bears have had 1 more receiver (i.e. eligible pass catcher) with significant catches (i.e. >19) than the teams on which Holmes has played.

 

2010 - Jets - 5, 2009 - Pitt - 6

2010 - Bears - 6, 2010 - Bears - 7

 

This gives more support to the hypothesis that the Bears spread the ball around more.

====================================================

 

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to crunch a few numbers. Food for thought.

[madlithuanian]

The numbers crunching show some interesting results.

 

However, we all know that stats can be misleading at times. I'm going of going with the smell test. I watch all theBbears games, and have seen a number of games Holmes has been in. Especially playoff games. And the Super Bowl. In big games, and in big situations, Holmes seems to come up big. I honestly don't feel that way about any of our wideouts.

 

Maybe I'm just being "the grass is always greener over there" guy... But, Hester and Knox do not strike my as reliable targets. Bennett is closer to that... But doesn't seem to have "it".

 

I would roll the dice on Holmes if possible. I'm far more sold on him. He's won big games. Sidney Rice just looked great for one year when favre was playing out of his head. I'd probably roll the dice on him too... But, I would much rather have Holmes. Adn, the due is 27. He's in the prime of his football career. easily 2 great years, potentially a bit more. I'd roll the dice on Holmes, pure & simple as long as the cost was not ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

Quick thoughts on Santonio Holmes:

 

1) How can any of you guys want Holmes and in the same breath (or in a previous post) get all bent out of shape about the possibility of Moss or TO. Hell, if we want a #1, it's Moss. He has a proven track record in games, and got screwed around last year. I'd rather take the guy with more talent if we're going to pick up a guy with problems off the field.

2) Is Holmes really all that reliable? Everything I can find shows that he's got somewhat unreliable hands and a case of the drops. He's not the worst in the league, but he's certainly not the best. (I realize that drops correlates, to some extent, to the number of targets). Iffy hands doesn't sound like #1 WR stuff to me.

 

Clearly "number of targets" and "team leader" data aren't reliable, because there are a ton of other factors to measure (e.g. opponent, type of offense, type of defenses faced, number of targets, team's record, team's scoring, etc.). But let's put it another way: If this were a fantasy football draft, is he even in the top 10 WRs? Top 15? The fact that there is guaranteed pause tells me he's not really a true #1. I'm not seeing the consistency spoken of in this thread. I'm not seeing the reliability spoken of in this thread. The fact is, he is an above average WR who has one or two big games each year, and disappears in other games during the year. Of course, the same applies to Knox.

 

STATS

 

% of Catches Per Target

Over the last three years - when Holmes has been considered a #1 WR, which is based primarily on his # of targets (2010:95, 2009:138,2008:114) - he has 40 total regular season games and 181 catches. Right off the bat we have the following:

 

% of Catches Per Target = 52% (By comparison, Knox - if he's the #1 WR for the Bears - has 54%.)

 

Small/Medium/Large Games

Small = Less than 5 catches

Medium = 5 or 6 catches

Large = More than 6 catches

 

Holmes: 47.5%, 37.5%, 15%, respectively.

Knox: 76%, 24%, 0%, respectively.

 

This leads to the concept that Knox is shut down more easily than Holmes, but it's a far too simplistic rubric. Again, we could point to a variety of reasons for this difference.

 

% of QB Completions

Holmes - 2010:24%, 2009:23%

Knox - 2010:19%,2009:14%

 

Now, this could be taken multiple ways. It could be an indication of QB/WR trust, or perhaps a way to determine if the QB spreads the ball around a bit more. Of note, however, is that over the last two years, the Bears have had 1 more receiver (i.e. eligible pass catcher) with significant catches (i.e. >19) than the teams on which Holmes has played.

 

2010 - Jets - 5, 2009 - Pitt - 6

2010 - Bears - 6, 2010 - Bears - 7

 

This gives more support to the hypothesis that the Bears spread the ball around more.

====================================================

 

Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to crunch a few numbers. Food for thought.