G Chris Williams

[Bears4Ever_34]

Fair enough. I think the OL played below average to average (if you were to average out all the games into one score).

Sure, but they haven't played below average football since Week 5 at Detroit. Since then its been quite a bit better and the important thing is that its happening NOW.

 

Look at Noot's opinion for OL/WR in all the games:

I say this with kindness and Im not trying to be an ass, but I don't really care nor do I base any of my opinions off of someone else opinionated grades . Come on now.

 

 

Going from Noots' grades above, I think it backs up my thoughts that the OL has played less consistent and slightly worse than the WRs, and that the OL isn't "obviously" better than the WRs, even though neither is going to be bringing home the report card to parents for increased allowance.

Okay? So what? Why are you using a fan's opinion like it's circumstantial evidence? I could make up a few grades right now if you'd like me to. Would you take those numbers as factual information as well?

 

 

We can agree that both areas need to be addressed, and we can also agree that offensive philosophy change (i.e. chipping, full house backfields, rollouts, misdirection, etc.) has helped, but then it comes full-circle to whether or not making the OL good would make the WRs better, or vice versa.

But upgrading at OL still doesn't mean our receivers are suddenly going to start learning how to catch balls. It's still not going to change the fact that none of them have the ability to adjust on the fly to a ball that's not thrown perfectly, like the Larry Fitzgerald's or the Calvin Johnson's of the world. All it would do is give the receivers more opportunities to get open, which helps but it still doesn't discount their deficiencies as a group.

 

 

You mentioned taking the top off the defense, and I contend the Bears already have two guys who can do that: Knox & Hester.

Yeah, they've done it so much that Devin Hester and Johnny Knox have a combined 1 total touchdown of a play greater than 30 yards. Fast doesn't necessarily = down the field play maker.

 

Since you would agree that the 7-step drop plays don't work, it comes down to the short routes the offense is forced to run, the quick hitters because of OL deficiencies. Wouldn't you agree?

Somewhat. In reality, there aren't many teams that routinely give you the 7 step drop anymore, because this league has become a shotgun oriented league with the spread it out, air it out type of offense. Or its the West coast style. Martz has called a smarter game by limiting these plays to a smaller degree, and that will help any offensive line. Why ruin a good thing if it's working?

 

Will adding a premiere WR who can take the top off the defense change the fact that Cutler won't have time to consistently drop back far enough for the slow-developing plays and routes to work? Maybe on a few throws over the course of the season it will.

Just because you aren't running plays where you drop the quarterback back 7 steps doesn't mean you can't throw down the field. There are ways around it and it's why you design roll outs to get the quarterback out of the pocket a bit. You can go more shotgun, throw in a few screens here and there to keep the defense off balanced, all the while mixing in a few 7 step drops every now and then. As long as Martz doesn't abuse it, it will work.

[balta1701-A]

How many first rounders don't work out? A lot. And we've started rookies in the secondary and then cut them within a few years. IMO, while starting the first year is nice, the goal of any first round pick should only be acquiring a top tier player, no matter the position, no matter if they need 2 or in some cases even 3 years to oust the current starter full-time.

There's a big difference here. Drafting someone in the first who should step in right away, but then who winds up needing 2-3 years of seasoning to turn into something really useful, versus Drafting someone in the first who is not ready right away, and then having to wait on them.

 

The former case is still acceptable. The latter case is only acceptable if, for some reason, you think you have an incredible find. That's what the Packers did with Rogers, for example, a guy who dropped 20 spots. The opposite case is Willis McGahee, who would have gone #1 or close to it had he not tore up his leg, and the Bills gave him a full year of no football to recover, and would up with an average RB out of it.

 

If there's an OT projected to go in the top 5 picks and he winds up twisting an ankle or having a terrible wonderlic score and is available at 30, sure, jump on him, if you think he's a legit top 5 pick talent, then sit on him if necessary, because you hope you just found a big score. But taking a guy at 28 who belongs in the late first with the expectation he's going to sit on the bench for several years, unless he's a QB, is not a winning strategy.

[lemonej]

There's a big difference here. Drafting someone in the first who should step in right away, but then who winds up needing 2-3 years of seasoning to turn into something really useful, versus Drafting someone in the first who is not ready right away, and then having to wait on them.

 

The former case is still acceptable. The latter case is only acceptable if, for some reason, you think you have an incredible find. That's what the Packers did with Rogers, for example, a guy who dropped 20 spots. The opposite case is Willis McGahee, who would have gone #1 or close to it had he not tore up his leg, and the Bills gave him a full year of no football to recover, and would up with an average RB out of it.

 

If there's an OT projected to go in the top 5 picks and he winds up twisting an ankle or having a terrible wonderlic score and is available at 30, sure, jump on him, if you think he's a legit top 5 pick talent, then sit on him if necessary, because you hope you just found a big score. But taking a guy at 28 who belongs in the late first with the expectation he's going to sit on the bench for several years, unless he's a QB, is not a winning strategy.

I agree and this past draft the only team IMO that had the opportunity to draft for depth or "seasoning" this past draft was the packers with all the players they had on IR(14 I believe) they were set up pretty nice winning the super bowl allegedly short-handed and gaining 14 veteran players plus 7 draft picks which allowed them to refresh and stock pile depth and maintain their status as one of the youngest teams in the league.

[selection7]

Some of my point of view comes from my philosophy that pushing a first year guy too hard takes away certain avenues for learning and replaces them purely with game after game of experience. It can work out in some cases, but not in others. If you're paying first round money, it makes sense to do things the right way, not the desperate way. So considering that I feel that way, of course I'm not going to buy that the goal of all first round picks is starting the first year. In many cases you may already have decent talent at their position, so pushing a veteran out makes even less sense. I'm not trying to go all Buddy Ryan on you though. I like to see rookies contribute.

[jason]

Sure, but they haven't played below average football since Week 5 at Detroit. Since then its been quite a bit better and the important thing is that its happening NOW.

 

I say this with kindness and Im not trying to be an ass, but I don't really care nor do I base any of my opinions off of someone else opinionated grades . Come on now.

 

Okay? So what? Why are you using a fan's opinion like it's circumstantial evidence? I could make up a few grades right now if you'd like me to. Would you take those numbers as factual information as well?

 

But upgrading at OL still doesn't mean our receivers are suddenly going to start learning how to catch balls. It's still not going to change the fact that none of them have the ability to adjust on the fly to a ball that's not thrown perfectly, like the Larry Fitzgerald's or the Calvin Johnson's of the world. All it would do is give the receivers more opportunities to get open, which helps but it still doesn't discount their deficiencies as a group.

 

Yeah, they've done it so much that Devin Hester and Johnny Knox have a combined 1 total touchdown of a play greater than 30 yards. Fast doesn't necessarily = down the field play maker.

 

Somewhat. In reality, there aren't many teams that routinely give you the 7 step drop anymore, because this league has become a shotgun oriented league with the spread it out, air it out type of offense. Or its the West coast style. Martz has called a smarter game by limiting these plays to a smaller degree, and that will help any offensive line. Why ruin a good thing if it's working?

 

Just because you aren't running plays where you drop the quarterback back 7 steps doesn't mean you can't throw down the field. There are ways around it and it's why you design roll outs to get the quarterback out of the pocket a bit. You can go more shotgun, throw in a few screens here and there to keep the defense off balanced, all the while mixing in a few 7 step drops every now and then. As long as Martz doesn't abuse it, it will work.

 

Dude...the reason I used Noots' Notes as a basis for comparison and grading is that it's impartial. I have no input into his rankings, and it's the closest I have to give some equating between the OL and the WRs, and whether one has performed better than the other this season. I contend the OL has done worse, and you contend the WRs have done worse. Noots' Notes lean more towards my side of the debate.

 

This all still comes down to the two biggest needs (OL & WR), and which helps the other more. There is no doubt the two are linked, but I guess we'll all just agree to disagree. As long as the OL isn't consistently good (they aren't - the Detroit game was a serious relapse), it severely restricts the offensive game plan and limits the amount of time the WRs have to get open. More time = More likely to get open. Will they catch it? Who knows? But the more wide open you are, the more likely you are to catch it. Would the stud WRs of the league catch it at a higher frequency? Yes. But if the QB has time to sit in the pocket and the WRs have more time to get open, it's a lot easier for them. Until then, even a stud WR on this offense is going to be restricted to a high diet of short routes - despite the few roll outs and other ways to integrate longer routes - because the OL can't consistently keep Cutler upright. And the recent status of Carimi and Williams will probably amplify this problem.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Until then, even a stud WR on this offense is going to be restricted to a high diet of short routes

 

 

This is the exact reason I hate even taking the time responding to your posts.

 

- despite the few roll outs and other ways to integrate longer routes - because the OL can't consistently keep Cutler upright.

Right, because this is the exact same offensive line from 8 weeks ago and they haven't made any kind of adjustments at all. Not one... See, this to me is what someone with a close minded perspective would say. To take something completely believable and logical and twist it into some false reality. Contrary to whatever you are trying to make yourself believe, roll outs do indeed help buy extra time for a quarterback, and no this offensive line is not bad enough to render such playcalls obsolete. I don't think I can ever recall one time where Cutler has been sacked when he's had a play designed to get him outside of the pocket. You are so hung up on this "Short route" crap when we've probably ran as many intermediate to deep routes as any team in the NFL this year and have still had some success. But how dare we with this offensive line, right?!

And the recent status of Carimi and Williams will probably amplify this problem.

I don't know how exactly this applies to anything since most of us could make the observation that losing two starters is probably not a good thing for an offensive line. What else is new?