Brandon Lloyd

[jason]

I think what your saying is a moot point because we all know Mike Martz isn't going to be here after this year anyways and the Bears can go back to running a more conventional style of offense. Yes, the 7 step drops don't work here but Jerry Rice was a pretty good short yardage, middle yardage, any yardage kind of a receiver. That guy was pretty good wherever you threw him the ball.

 

Wrong. Mike Furrey and Mcdonald were the beneficiaries of Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson being on the field and the fact that the only thing Detroit ever did was throw the ball, because their running game was so pathetic (More passes = more receptions). 2007 was also the year Roy Williams missed 4 games because of injuries. It's not uncommon for slot receivers to lead the team in receptions, but to use that as your argument is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Um, what? Nobody ever said anything about posting the same stats. The way you and the other guy were talking sounded like Jerry Rice would have suddenly transformed into the next David Terrell. And I'm telling you he would still be GREAT.

 

Lol. Just because some guy was drafted in the 1st round doesn't mean he was a stud on the Lions. If you didn't noticed, the Lions actually gave up more sacks in 2006 (63) than the Bears did last season. And the season after that, they gave up 51. So no, I wouldn't say I ignored anything.

 

If by time, you mean no time-- then I would agree. It's just that, when on rare occasions the line did protect him, he was able to make plays because his receivers knew how to get open. Ours don't, and can't because they are not any good. I don't know how I can paint the picture any more clearly.

 

The facts:

-Rice would have been the Bears best WR ever, but would have not put up the stats he did. Nowhere near. The reasons why are plentiful, but mostly they deal with the Bears 20 year drought at QB, and recent failures at OL. The original comment was in regards to this specific team. And on this specific team, he would have excelled in short/intermediate gains, but would not have had time to develop longer routes.

-You're simply wrong on the WRs for Detroit that year. You can't argue the fact that McDonald led the team in receptions and Furrey had more than Calvin. The point to me bringing it up is that Kitna spread the ball around and didn't simply key in on his big WRs, which is what you and many others imply would happen if the Bears went out and got a big #1. If that were the case, then Kitna would have done the same thing and simply defaulted to Roy and Calvin. Problem is, he didn't, so it kind of invalidates that line of flawed reasoning.

-I know 1st Rd stud, which is why I put "stud" next to the guys' names who actually are/were studs. You can't argue that Backus, Woody, and Raiola are a great three-man foundation for any OL.

[jason]

Here is a write up by a Lions fan that I thought could be relevant here:

 

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2011/10/5...artz-experience

 

Interesting write up, but nothing terribly new.

 

We know a perfectly running Martz offense needs:

1) Accurate QB

2) Good-great OL

3) WRs that can get open

 

Arguably, the Bears have #1. I would even submit that they are close on #3. But just about every time #1 and #3 attempt to work well, they step in #2.

 

 

[balta1701-A]

Lloyd has been traded to the St. Louis Rams.

[Bears4Ever_34]

-You're simply wrong on the WRs for Detroit that year.

I'm not, but go ahead and try to twist the facts in your favor.

 

You can't argue the fact that McDonald led the team in receptions and Furrey had more than Calvin.

Actually, you can because as I mentioned before, Kitna threw the ball 596 times in 2006, which was 2nd in the league behind only Brett Favre. More passes leads to more receptions to receivers. Mike Furrey was the slot receiver in 06 and 07 and excelled in the Mike Martz offense because Kitna was a quarterback who used the middle of the field quite a bit. Generally the slot receiver is usually the easiest pass to make because they do most of their work between the numbers.

 

The point to me bringing it up is that Kitna spread the ball around and didn't simply key in on his big WRs, which is what you and many others imply would happen if the Bears went out and got a big #1.

Well you are right in that sense. Kitna was surprisingly very good in the Martz scheme (And in alot of ways, is better than Cutler at it, given their skill sets). But the fact of the matter is, Kitna still had a #1 to work with and the Bears don't. Roy caught 82 balls for over 1300 yards in 06. The Bears haven't had a guy like that in forever and it's an absolute necessity for every team (No matter that scheme) to have a legit #1 target to throw to so teams have something other than Matt Forte to focus on.

 

 

If that were the case, then Kitna would have done the same thing and simply defaulted to Roy and Calvin. Problem is, he didn't, so it kind of invalidates that line of flawed reasoning.

 

No, Kitna was able to spread the ball around even more in 2007 because of Calvin Johnson and the extra talent showed in the record (06 = 3 wins, 07 = 7 wins). Also I think it's worth mentioning that both Sean McDonald and Az Hakiim were both brought over to Detroit with Martz because they played in his system with the Rams while he was the Head Coach. So when they came in, they already knew the offense which only helps a quarterback even more when he has to trust guys to be in their spots. It may be hard to swallow but I don't think its that far fetched to say Detroits weapons aside from Roy and Calvin, are still better than the Bears receivers with the exception of maybe Knox. But only because of his speed.

 

 

-I know 1st Rd stud, which is why I put "stud" next to the guys' names who actually are/were studs. You can't argue that Backus, Woody, and Raiola are a great three-man foundation for any OL.

They were good before they got to the Lions. They didn't fit in Martz's scheme and it showed in the sack totals. I think even one year they were without Damien Woody for nearly an entire season and still put up points.

 

Bottom Line: The point I'm trying to make is that you can still put up points in an offense without elite level talent on the offensive line if you have the elite talent at WR. It certainly is not ideal to have an offense without a good offensive line, but there has been instances where you can still get along without one and still be somewhat productive. Detroit was just an example I used because it dealt with Mike Martz.

 

This all goes back to why I feel like the Bears should target a #1 receiver in round 1 of the draft next year as opposed to offensive line. I think I've made it clear on why I think that, by now but it's also because the best LT in the draft will likely be gone by the time we are drafting and we are going into a draft that isn't particularly filled with as much offensive line talent as there has been in recent years. If there was ever a year for us to find a #1 receiver, it's in this draft. WR is by far the strongest position next year.

[jason]

I'm not, but go ahead and try to twist the facts in your favor.

 

Actually, you can because as I mentioned before, Kitna threw the ball 596 times in 2006, which was 2nd in the league behind only Brett Favre. More passes leads to more receptions to receivers. Mike Furrey was the slot receiver in 06 and 07 and excelled in the Mike Martz offense because Kitna was a quarterback who used the middle of the field quite a bit. Generally the slot receiver is usually the easiest pass to make because they do most of their work between the numbers.

 

True or False: McDonald led the Lions in receptions? True. You can't argue that because it's a statistical fact. I don't care how you think it happened, or why it happened, or how in the world it relates to Favre. It happened. McDonald was #1 on that team in receptions. Period.

 

Well you are right in that sense. Kitna was surprisingly very good in the Martz scheme (And in alot of ways, is better than Cutler at it, given their skill sets). But the fact of the matter is, Kitna still had a #1 to work with and the Bears don't. Roy caught 82 balls for over 1300 yards in 06. The Bears haven't had a guy like that in forever and it's an absolute necessity for every team (No matter that scheme) to have a legit #1 target to throw to so teams have something other than Matt Forte to focus on.

 

No, Kitna was able to spread the ball around even more in 2007 because of Calvin Johnson and the extra talent showed in the record (06 = 3 wins, 07 = 7 wins). Also I think it's worth mentioning that both Sean McDonald and Az Hakiim were both brought over to Detroit with Martz because they played in his system with the Rams while he was the Head Coach. So when they came in, they already knew the offense which only helps a quarterback even more when he has to trust guys to be in their spots. It may be hard to swallow but I don't think its that far fetched to say Detroits weapons aside from Roy and Calvin, are still better than the Bears receivers with the exception of maybe Knox. But only because of his speed.

 

There is no debate about the Bears not having a legit #1. But as the previous note proves, Kitna spread the ball around a lot and took advantage of multiple other receivers who weren't really that good, and put up huge stats. The #1 guy would help (like the Lions), but you saw what happened last night WITH an OL that protects and WITHOUT a #1. The Bears beat that ass because Cutler spread it around, just like Kitna did. I contend that Kitna spreading it around was a mix of "good OL" and "better WRs" than the Bears, but I also believe, and last night supports, that the "good OL" part of the equation makes not having a #1 minimally painful. Further, I believe that since guys like McDonald and Furrey did so well, the #1 is still not as important as an OL that protects adequately. Once again, last night supports that concept.

 

Bottom Line: The point I'm trying to make is that you can still put up points in an offense without elite level talent on the offensive line if you have the elite talent at WR. It certainly is not ideal to have an offense without a good offensive line, but there has been instances where you can still get along without one and still be somewhat productive. Detroit was just an example I used because it dealt with Mike Martz.

 

This all goes back to why I feel like the Bears should target a #1 receiver in round 1 of the draft next year as opposed to offensive line. I think I've made it clear on why I think that, by now but it's also because the best LT in the draft will likely be gone by the time we are drafting and we are going into a draft that isn't particularly filled with as much offensive line talent as there has been in recent years. If there was ever a year for us to find a #1 receiver, it's in this draft. WR is by far the strongest position next year.

 

I think I've stated pretty clearly why good OL and average WRs make an offense work. I believe last night supports it. The Lions example is a decent one for your cause of WR>OL, but I think you severely discount the OL they had. The sacks are misrepresentative because of the sheer number of dropbacks in the Martz offense. The sacks are inevitable. I agree with you that we don't need elite OLinemen, but we need something much better than what we have. I believe last night versus the Vikings was an aberration, and we'll see dark clouds over Cutler's head soon enough.

 

As for your final thought regarding this year's talent, that may be the best reason to support your cause of targeting WR over OL. Even as strong a proponent of OL as I am, if somehow one of the stud WRs fall into the Bears' laps, and no equal talent is there, it wouldn't kill me if a WR was selected. Of course, I'd expect 2 of the next 3 picks to be OL (unless we had some firm hooks on FA OL).

[Bears4Ever_34]

True or False: McDonald led the Lions in receptions? True. You can't argue that because it's a statistical fact. I don't care how you think it happened, or why it happened, or how in the world it relates to Favre. It happened. McDonald was #1 on that team in receptions. Period.

 

Oh I know. He did lead them in receptions but as I said before, that was also the year (2007) that Roy Williams missed 4 games with injuries. But regardless, McDonald had a great season thanks in large part to the addition of Calvin Johnson and having Roy Williams on the field. I don't think people were really saying in their meetings "Hey ya know we really need to stop Sean McDonald or were going to lose." They were keying in on Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson. What I'm saying is, the Bears don't have that luxury now. They don't have that one guy or two guys that you can throw out there and make teams really gameplan for. Also, McDonald had already been in Martz's system with the Rams for 4 or 5 seasons before he came to Detroit, so it wasn't like he came in learning a new offense. He was a guy that knew the system and that plays a part in it as well.

 

or how in the world it relates to Favre.

What about Favre?

 

But as the previous note proves, Kitna spread the ball around a lot and took advantage of multiple other receivers who weren't really that good, and put up huge stats.

Having great receivers play a part in making ordinary receivers better than they actually are (The quarterback also plays a large part in that as well.) Cutler made Eddie Royal into a borderline pro bowler in that Denver offense but I don't think that happens without Brandon Marshall.

 

 

The #1 guy would help (like the Lions), but you saw what happened last night WITH an OL that protects and WITHOUT a #1. The Bears beat that ass because Cutler spread it around, just like Kitna did.

I really wouldn't put much stock into last nights game as a good example of anything. While Cutler had more time to make plays, there were still dropped passes by Sanzenbacher and Hester that should have been caught. Even Hester's touchdown pass looked bad. Did you see how he caught that thing like he was fielding a hand off? I don't know how he caught that ball.

 

We saw this sort of play calling late last season when Martz went with more max protects and quicker reads to get the ball out of Cutler's hands. It worked for the most part but we still lacked explosiveness and we still struggled to score points on a consistent basis.

 

Let's also not discount the fact that the Vikings are a dead dog team with a lackluster passing game that gets into huge deficits early in the game because of it. They play sort of the same Cover 2 scheme that we do on defense and that generally hasn't given our line as much problems as teams with a 3-4 defense or teams that run exotic blitz packages like the Saints and Packers. I want to see it against some of the best teams in the league and not the worst.

 

 

Further, I believe that since guys like McDonald and Furrey did so well, the #1 is still not as important as an OL that protects adequately. Once again, last night supports that concept.

Again, don't put much stock into a game against the Minnesota Vikings. Also, I don't think either of those guys would have been nearly as productive without Roy Williams or Calvin Johnson as security blankets. They certainly wouldn't have put up nearly as many points.

 

 

I agree with you that we don't need elite OLinemen, but we need something much better than what we have.

 

Totally agree. I wouldn't mind spending a couple mid round picks on a tackle, a guard, or a center, or some combination between the 3. I personally feel like adding someone like Justin Blackmon, Alshon Jeffery, or Michael Floyd would impact this offense more so than another lineman. But I don't see any reason why we can't upgrade both in the same draft. Lets just spend our 1st round pick on a playmaker first and then build the line off of that.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Bears. I agree with most of your post, but when you said Minnesota is a dead-dog team that gets into huge 1st half deficits as a result of there crappy pass offense, well, that really isn't true. Up until this game, Minnesota had done nothing but destroy teams in the 1st half of games (they blew a 17 point 1st half lead and 20 or 21 point 1st half lead).

[Bears4Ever_34]

Bears. I agree with most of your post, but when you said Minnesota is a dead-dog team that gets into huge 1st half deficits as a result of there crappy pass offense, well, that really isn't true. Up until this game, Minnesota had done nothing but destroy teams in the 1st half of games (they blew a 17 point 1st half lead and 20 or 21 point 1st half lead).

No you're right about that. For some reason I had it in my head that they would always get off to slow starts and then pick it up in the 2nd half but it was actually the other way around. My mistake.