Melton going to be the new "Fridge"??????

[jason]

No Im not at all confused, my post was that Melton was being used as a FB to help the team, your point was this was a bad idea to switch positions. Then we started to compare apples to grapes. Yes i agree with you that Melton was drafted to play DT/DE, but Clutts was not drafted and had to make a team anyway he could(FB) since he was a DE in college. My point was that since Melton had played RB/RB in college before he could do it with the Bears for a few plays....not all year without hurting the team at DT. And as you can see you have a DT thats bigger and faster than Clutts and ran a fourty time in the 4.5 area that played in the backfield ....why not try it for a few plays .

 

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/sha...vations_fr.html

 

Tyler Clutts, Fresno State

Height: 6-2. Weight: 245.

40 Time: 4.67.

Projected Round: FA.

A tweener who made the All-WAC Conference Second Team with five sacks.

 

Bigger & faster is far too simplistic for determining who the better blocker is. It's the "why not" mentality that bothers me because then we get back into talking about Urlacher returning a punt or Briggs trying a FG.

['TD']

Not trying to side track the convo, but Melton in short yardage is it says 3 things about the team.

 

1.) They recognize that there is a problem in short yardage situations.

 

2.) They did not address it properly in the off season.

 

3.) They are throwing stuff off the wall and seeing what will stick for the solution.

 

The practice of Melton in the running game also has it's draw backs that you have to weigh vs. his addition to short yardage.

 

1) A starting DT is in a position to get hurt in a hard hitting environment, playing a position he isn't exactly comfortable with at this point.

 

2) Extra wear in the game, right before he has to come back out on defense, making him less effective at the position he is on the team to play.

 

3) A higher chance for fumbles in critical spots of the game.

[jason]

Not trying to side track the convo, but Melton in short yardage is it says 3 things about the team.

 

1.) They recognize that there is a problem in short yardage situations.

2.) They did not address it properly in the off season.

3.) They are throwing stuff off the wall and seeing what will stick for the solution.

 

The practice of Melton in the running game also has it's draw backs that you have to weigh vs. his addition to short yardage.

 

1) A starting DT is in a position to get hurt in a hard hitting environment, playing a position he isn't exactly comfortable with at this point.

2) Extra wear in the game, right before he has to come back out on defense, making him less effective at the position he is on the team to play.

3) A higher chance for fumbles in critical spots of the game.

 

Great post. I didn't even consider the added aspect of more potential fumbles or injuries. You're dead-on with the first three bullet points.

[madlithuanian]

Agreed. I lean on the "why not?" side, but the last 3 items make it far less appealing...

 

Great post. I didn't even consider the added aspect of more potential fumbles or injuries. You're dead-on with the first three bullet points.

 

[Wesson44]

Not trying to side track the convo, but Melton in short yardage is it says 3 things about the team.

 

1.) They recognize that there is a problem in short yardage situations.

 

2.) They did not address it properly in the off season.

 

3.) They are throwing stuff off the wall and seeing what will stick for the solution.

 

The practice of Melton in the running game also has it's draw backs that you have to weigh vs. his addition to short yardage.

 

1) A starting DT is in a position to get hurt in a hard hitting environment, playing a position he isn't exactly comfortable with at this point.

 

2) Extra wear in the game, right before he has to come back out on defense, making him less effective at the position he is on the team to play.

 

3) A higher chance for fumbles in critical spots of the game.

 

Your first three point are good and correct. But the last three i beg to differ.

 

1) A starting DT is in a position to get hurt in a hard hitting environment, playing a position he isn't exactly comfortable with at this point.

 

Who is to say he is not comforable at it..he played the position(RB) in high school and college,by the way all players are in a position to get hurt in a hard hitting environment that football. Now ask yourself how did our DT Matt Toeaina suffered a broken right hand in OTA's

 

2) Extra wear in the game, right before he has to come back out on defense, making him less effective at the position he is on the team to play.

 

If and when he does play RB, being that he is on a rotation at DT he wont play the next series on defense after running the ball, unless the team and he feels good about going back on defense. This is no different than some of the starters playing on special teams, they play that one play then go back to their position on offense or defense.

 

3) A higher chance for fumbles in critical spots of the game.

What higher chance of fumbles??? Look at Barber last year when his fumble cost us the game against Denver, and the game were Forte fumbled twice in the game. There is no higher chance of fumbling because he used to carry the ball before. I can understand if he NEVER played the position before then your point would be valid.

['TD']

Your first three point are good and correct. But the last three i beg to differ.

 

1) A starting DT is in a position to get hurt in a hard hitting environment, playing a position he isn't exactly comfortable with at this point.

 

Who is to say he is not comforable at it..he played the position(RB) in high school and college,by the way all players are in a position to get hurt in a hard hitting environment that football. Now ask yourself how did our DT Matt Toeaina suffered a broken right hand in OTA's

 

2) Extra wear in the game, right before he has to come back out on defense, making him less effective at the position he is on the team to play.

 

If and when he does play RB, being that he is on a rotation at DT he wont play the next series on defense after running the ball, unless the team and he feels good about going back on defense. This is no different than some of the starters playing on special teams, they play that one play then go back to their position on offense or defense.

 

3) A higher chance for fumbles in critical spots of the game.

What higher chance of fumbles??? Look at Barber last year when his fumble cost us the game against Denver, and the game were Forte fumbled twice in the game. There is no higher chance of fumbling because he used to carry the ball before. I can understand if he NEVER played the position before then your point would be valid.

 

1.) He hasn't been a RB in 5 years. He's since focused on being a DT. He's never did it on an NFL level, so yes, I don't think he would be comfortable in that position. When I haven't did something for 5 years, it feels awkward at first. He won't be getting the reps needed to get in that comfort zone either. If he is getting reps, he is losing reps he needs to be learning to be a better DT. And, I think a guy running the ball or slamming into a line trying to make a hole is taking more abuse than a DT on a normal play. Between the rust and impact of the line, my opinion is he is more likely to get hurt running one short yardage play as a FB as apposed to a play at DT.

 

2.) That's pretty much my point. Either A) you leave him in and he is worn down or he plays less defense. Both situations hurt the team given he is the starter. Does he contribute more in that short down situation or would you rather him on the field on defense more? I can't answer that question, but it's something to take into consideration.

 

3.) I got another Barber for you, Tiki. The NFL went on and on for years about how he learned to hold onto the ball. Will Melton be able to hold on as well as offensive players who work on that everyday? He's 5 years removed from being a back up running back as sound at holding onto the ball. In theory, Forte, Bush and even Clutts should be better at holding onto the ball, seeing holes, and even blocking. That's what they do everyday in practice.

[Wesson44]

1.) He hasn't been a RB in 5 years. He's since focused on being a DT. He's never did it on an NFL level, so yes, I don't think he would be comfortable in that position. When I haven't did something for 5 years, it feels awkward at first. He won't be getting the reps needed to get in that comfort zone either. If he is getting reps, he is losing reps he needs to be learning to be a better DT. And, I think a guy running the ball or slamming into a line trying to make a hole is taking more abuse than a DT on a normal play. Between the rust and impact of the line, my opinion is he is more likely to get hurt running one short yardage play as a FB as apposed to a play at DT.

 

You said he wont be comfortable...he said he was because he did it before.Plus if they are going to use him he has all trainng camp to get used to carring the ball for a play or two. And i think that the coaches will be coaching him up on those needs of the game (hold on to the ball, and cover it with two hands)

 

2.) That's pretty much my point. Either A) you leave him in and he is worn down or he plays less defense. Both situations hurt the team given he is the starter. Does he contribute more in that short down situation or would you rather him on the field on defense more? I can't answer that question, but it's something to take into consideration.

First off he is not the starter at RB and maybe will only see one play or two...you cant get worn down from that.Tillman plays special teams and it has no bearing on his play at CB

 

3.) I got another Barber for you, Tiki. The NFL went on and on for years about how he learned to hold onto the ball. Will Melton be able to hold on as well as offensive players who work on that everyday? He's 5 years removed from being a back up running back as sound at holding onto the ball. In theory, Forte, Bush and even Clutts should be better at holding onto the ball, seeing holes, and even blocking. That's what they do everyday in practice.

 

Thats Tiki who did carry the ball rather lose but he was getting it like 20 times a game. Melton will get it maybe once if at all

 

[jason]

1.) He hasn't been a RB in 5 years. He's since focused on being a DT. He's never did it on an NFL level, so yes, I don't think he would be comfortable in that position. When I haven't did something for 5 years, it feels awkward at first. He won't be getting the reps needed to get in that comfort zone either. If he is getting reps, he is losing reps he needs to be learning to be a better DT. And, I think a guy running the ball or slamming into a line trying to make a hole is taking more abuse than a DT on a normal play. Between the rust and impact of the line, my opinion is he is more likely to get hurt running one short yardage play as a FB as apposed to a play at DT.

 

2.) That's pretty much my point. Either A) you leave him in and he is worn down or he plays less defense. Both situations hurt the team given he is the starter. Does he contribute more in that short down situation or would you rather him on the field on defense more? I can't answer that question, but it's something to take into consideration.

 

3.) I got another Barber for you, Tiki. The NFL went on and on for years about how he learned to hold onto the ball. Will Melton be able to hold on as well as offensive players who work on that everyday? He's 5 years removed from being a back up running back as sound at holding onto the ball. In theory, Forte, Bush and even Clutts should be better at holding onto the ball, seeing holes, and even blocking. That's what they do everyday in practice.

 

1. Thank you. It's a sacrifice that gives less reps at DT (his actual position), provides minimal snaps at FB (his potential new position), and the combination - specifically because of how the two positions are played (e.g. hand positioning, body lean, receiving vs. delivering hits) - along with simply absorbing more hits, is what makes him more injury prone. The number of plays is nearly inconsequential because absorbing massive hits, especially if you are unaccustomed to the impact, weighs heavily on a body. Ask a non-boxer about getting punched in the stomach and you begin to understand this phenomenon.

 

2. Thank you. The potential benefit of his minimal offensive contributions are offset by the probable degradation of his defensive contributions. There is a reason why players don't play both ways any more.

 

3. Thank you. No further explanation needed.

[Wesson44]

1. Thank you. It's a sacrifice that gives less reps at DT (his actual position), provides minimal snaps at FB (his potential new position), and the combination - specifically because of how the two positions are played (e.g. hand positioning, body lean, receiving vs. delivering hits) - along with simply absorbing more hits, is what makes him more injury prone. The number of plays is nearly inconsequential because absorbing massive hits, especially if you are unaccustomed to the impact, weighs heavily on a body. Ask a non-boxer about getting punched in the stomach and you begin to understand this phenomenon.

 

2. Thank you. The potential benefit of his minimal offensive contributions are offset by the probable degradation of his defensive contributions. There is a reason why players don't play both ways any more.

 

3. Thank you. No further explanation needed.

 

LOL you are funny with the way you compare the change of positions. You have a few good points I'll give you that and so do i, but like I said before I win and you lose.....because if the Bears are going to use him as a FB/RB for a few plays then its going to happen and there is nothing YOU can do about it. I'm in favor and you are not. No further explanation needed

[jason]

LOL you are funny with the way you compare the change of positions. You have a few good points I'll give you that and so do i, but like I said before I win and you lose.....because if the Bears are going to use him as a FB/RB for a few plays then its going to happen and there is nothing YOU can do about it. I'm in favor and you are not. No further explanation needed

 

Yes, because every move the Bears have ever made has been the correct move.

[madlithuanian]

Nah, just those under Emery's watch.

 

Yes, because every move the Bears have ever made has been the correct move.

 

[Wesson44]

Nah, just those under Emery's watch.

 

I agree it's a new GM in town making good moves to get back to winning.

[Wesson44]

Yes, because every move the Bears have ever made has been the correct move.

 

Now I never said every move the Bears made was a good move, i am saying that some of the moves they make or needed to make can help this team win. Like getting four WR in the draft and FA...look back and see hoe YOU laughed at the idea...oh not to mentin all the three WR above 6'0 we got.Thomas,Marshall,Jeffrey and the UDFA Summers at 6'5. I may not know everything but I do know what we need as a team just by warching them

[jason]

Now I never said every move the Bears made was a good move, i am saying that some of the moves they make or needed to make can help this team win. Like getting four WR in the draft and FA...look back and see hoe YOU laughed at the idea...oh not to mentin all the three WR above 6'0 we got.Thomas,Marshall,Jeffrey and the UDFA Summers at 6'5. I may not know everything but I do know what we need as a team just by warching them

 

My god how many times does this have to be explained to you? They did not get 4 WRs. They got two WRs, and two dudes who will play almost exclusively on ST.

 

And, as stated, just because the Bears make a move doesn't make it the right thing to do. You may side with them, but if you side with them on everything you have about a 50% chance of being wrong.

[Wesson44]

My god how many times does this have to be explained to you? They did not get 4 WRs. They got two WRs, and two dudes who will play almost exclusively on ST.

 

And, as stated, just because the Bears make a move doesn't make it the right thing to do. You may side with them, but if you side with them on everything you have about a 50% chance of being wrong.

 

Man you keep trying to make your point....but you have none.....point being Weems is a WR playing special teams, Thomas is a WR playing special teams and Marshall & Jeffrey are both WR.....so second grade math tells you that 1+1+1+1=4. It does not matter where they play there are WR's. So if Weems and Thomas go into the game on offense when lets say its third and five we are winning by 20 where do they line up......on special teams or at WR?

[jason]

Man you keep trying to make your point....but you have none.....point being Weems is a WR playing special teams, Thomas is a WR playing special teams and Marshall & Jeffrey are both WR.....so second grade math tells you that 1+1+1+1=4. It does not matter where they play there are WR's. So if Weems and Thomas go into the game on offense when lets say its third and five we are winning by 20 where do they line up......on special teams or at WR?

 

I don't know why you're being so oblivious about this. Common convention and roster size doesn't allow any team to just pick up ST players, so they have to pick up guys who are ST players who happen to have a position after their name. The position after their name means nothing, however, because in reality their position is ST. There is no debating that Weems and Thomas are unlikely to see the field on offense. Your argument is akin to saying Doug Flutie should be called a kicker because he did that drop kick one time. His normal position, where he was on the field 99.9% of the time, was QB. Therefore, he's a QB. Is Forte a QB because he gets to throw one or two passes per year? No. He's a RB. Similarly, Thomas and Weems are ST players until something drastic happens to Marshall, Hester, Bennett, and Jeffery...maybe even Sanz.

 

Here's a good article about the subject.

 

Go to Google and type in "Eric Weems"+"Chicago Bears"...

Link 1: "Kick returner/wide receiver"

2: "Special Teams Ace"

3: "Return Man"

4: "Return Specialist and Gunner on Special Teams"

5: "Special Teams Ace"

 

The ONLY player up for debate is Thomas - absolutely killed it last year with 3 receptions - who maaaaybe will win the #5 battle over Sanz, and that's only because Knox is injured. BTW, the answer to your question of where they will line up? Regardless of the lead or deficit, their primary position on the Bears will be on Special Teams.

[AZ54]

Keeping two WR solely for special teams is a waste IMO. At least one of them needs to be able to contribute on offense on a short term basis when someone is injured. I've been saying there is room for competition at Thomas' roster spot. Weems was given too much money upfront to be let go unless he totally bombs.

 

Slot 6 is open for competition among Sanz, Thomas, and any other WR in camp. If Thomas thinks he can hang his hat on the fact that he's good in kick coverage then he better look over at the defense where there are two rookie CBs and a rookie safety all looking to earn a roster spot and playing time. They all know Corey Graham made his mark as a special teamer and it paid off for him. There is also a chance we'll go with 5 WRs and keep 4 TEs in this new offense.

[Wesson44]

I don't know why you're being so oblivious about this. Common convention and roster size doesn't allow any team to just pick up ST players, so they have to pick up guys who are ST players who happen to have a position after their name. The position after their name means nothing, however, because in reality their position is ST. There is no debating that Weems and Thomas are unlikely to see the field on offense. Your argument is akin to saying Doug Flutie should be called a kicker because he did that drop kick one time. His normal position, where he was on the field 99.9% of the time, was QB. Therefore, he's a QB. Is Forte a QB because he gets to throw one or two passes per year? No. He's a RB. Similarly, Thomas and Weems are ST players until something drastic happens to Marshall, Hester, Bennett, and Jeffery...maybe even Sanz.

 

Here's a good article about the subject.

 

Go to Google and type in "Eric Weems"+"Chicago Bears"...

Link 1: "Kick returner/wide receiver"

2: "Special Teams Ace"

3: "Return Man"

4: "Return Specialist and Gunner on Special Teams"

5: "Special Teams Ace"

 

The ONLY player up for debate is Thomas - absolutely killed it last year with 3 receptions - who maaaaybe will win the #5 battle over Sanz, and that's only because Knox is injured. BTW, the answer to your question of where they will line up? Regardless of the lead or deficit, their primary position on the Bears will be on Special Teams.

 

You still have no merit to your argument. Weems and Thomas are WR's and will play WR(if needed) and special teams and we will leave it at that. Now your point is also moot because the best return man in the game (Hester) is a WR playing special teams!

[jason]

You still have no merit to your argument. Weems and Thomas are WR's and will play WR(if needed) and special teams and we will leave it at that. Now your point is also moot because the best return man in the game (Hester) is a WR playing special teams!

 

The point is not moot. You don't think very deeply on any of this, do you? What was the result of moving a ST player to WR?

 

1. He became an average WR.

2. More importantly, his ability and impact on ST (you know, where he's best at) was immediately diminished.

 

Just go to his stats and you can see he's listed as a PR year one, KR/PR year two, and then PR/WR thereafter. First two years as a primary ST player (what he is), 11 return TDs. The next two years when they force-fed him into a WR role? 0 return TDs. It took him three years to get back to his old self. Funny, we're back to full circle on this thread topic where the idea of using Melton at FB is tossed around. Learn from the Hester experiment; we don't need a three year experiment at FB.

 

Sorry, dude, other than the players and their mothers, you're about the only person in the world who considers Weems and Thomas primarily WRs. Weems had 189 touches on ST the past three years, and 6 receptions. He's exclusively a ST player. End of discussion. Thomas is at least in possession of more career receptions than a good WR gets in one game, but he's still got more ST touches (60) to receptions (43) - which is why I said Thomas was the only one even up for debate.

[Pixote]

It is extremely unusual for a stellar return man to repeat his success year after year. Many times you have a one or two year wonder and then they drop off the face of the map. Is it possible that using Hester a bit less on STs do to his use as a WR has actually benefited him and helped him continue his effectiveness instead of diminishing it?

 

I hear a lot of people questioning if we hurt his production as a KR by using him as a WR. I am not sure if that is 100% true.

[jason]

It is extremely unusual for a stellar return man to repeat his success year after year. Many times you have a one or two year wonder and then they drop off the face of the map. Is it possible that using Hester a bit less on STs do to his use as a WR has actually benefited him and helped him continue his effectiveness instead of diminishing it?

 

I hear a lot of people questioning if we hurt his production as a KR by using him as a WR. I am not sure if that is 100% true.

 

Perhaps. But I think it's more about the time of adjustment. The learning curve. There is no doubt he was hurt the first two years during the move to WR. But after the two year adjustment period he posted some of the best return numbers of his career. He's averaged more PR yards the past two years than when he was shocking the world...and with only two less TDs to boot.

[Wesson44]

The point is not moot. You don't think very deeply on any of this, do you? What was the result of moving a ST player to WR?

 

1. He became an average WR.

2. More importantly, his ability and impact on ST (you know, where he's best at) was immediately diminished.

 

Just go to his stats and you can see he's listed as a PR year one, KR/PR year two, and then PR/WR thereafter. First two years as a primary ST player (what he is), 11 return TDs. The next two years when they force-fed him into a WR role? 0 return TDs. It took him three years to get back to his old self. Funny, we're back to full circle on this thread topic where the idea of using Melton at FB is tossed around. Learn from the Hester experiment; we don't need a three year experiment at FB.

 

Sorry, dude, other than the players and their mothers, you're about the only person in the world who considers Weems and Thomas primarily WRs. Weems had 189 touches on ST the past three years, and 6 receptions. He's exclusively a ST player. End of discussion. Thomas is at least in possession of more career receptions than a good WR gets in one game, but he's still got more ST touches (60) to receptions (43) - which is why I said Thomas was the only one even up for debate.

 

LOL you dont think your points are moot because you are like my wife....never want to be wrong.You make points then try to put another spin on it in your quest to be right. Its true that Weems and Thomas will be special teams players, but that FACT remains that they are WR's playing special teams.They were drafted as WR not St players. Now I will admit that as a WR both of these two may not see the field and Thomas has had a lesser chance since being in the league but at days end they are still WR's. Now read the line after their names.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devin_Thomas

[jason]

LOL you dont think your points are moot because you are like my wife....never want to be wrong.You make points then try to put another spin on it in your quest to be right. Its true that Weems and Thomas will be special teams players, but that FACT remains that they are WR's playing special teams.They were drafted as WR not St players. Now I will admit that as a WR both of these two may not see the field and Thomas has had a lesser chance since being in the league but at days end they are still WR's. Now read the line after their names.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devin_Thomas

 

Likewise, dude, likewise.

 

Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a beauty pageant contestant. Both players, no matter how much PT you and their moms hope they get at WR, are playing way more ST than O. And in the case of Weems, it will be about 99.5% ST to .5% WR. That makes them guys who play ST but were drafted to be WRs.

 

Weems and Thomas were drafted as WRs, but now play on STs. It's not like the Bears management said, "Dude! Did you see Weems on the two catches he had last year?! Holy hell, we gotta sign that guy and get him in on offense!"

 

Also, if you mention nonsense about Devin Hester (trust me, the comparison is nonsense for multiple reasons) to support your claim, I'm going to point out why it's nonsense. By your logic the Bears should pass around a sheet in the locker and ask everyone what they positions they played in college, and if they'd like to get some reps in at any positions in which they don't currently see the field.

[Wesson44]

Likewise, dude, likewise.

 

Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a beauty pageant contestant. Both players, no matter how much PT you and their moms hope they get at WR, are playing way more ST than O. And in the case of Weems, it will be about 99.5% ST to .5% WR. That makes them guys who play ST but were drafted to be WRs.

 

Weems and Thomas were drafted as WRs, but now play on STs. It's not like the Bears management said, "Dude! Did you see Weems on the two catches he had last year?! Holy hell, we gotta sign that guy and get him in on offense!"

 

Also, if you mention nonsense about Devin Hester (trust me, the comparison is nonsense for multiple reasons) to support your claim, I'm going to point out why it's nonsense. By your logic the Bears should pass around a sheet in the locker and ask everyone what they positions they played in college, and if they'd like to get some reps in at any positions in which they don't currently see the field.

Now I see your point ...you have none. Now you are agreeing with me when you say Weems and Thomas were drafted as WRs, but now play on STs. that the whole point!!!!! they are WR!!!!!!!!!

Now I never said that Weems and Thomas will be playing WR more than special teams...I agree that they will play ST more than WR but they are still WR's so that is a moot point you are trying to make.

Now the Redskins drafted Thomas as a WR and the Falcons drafted Weems as a WR because they played that in college and tore it up doing so. now when they got to the NFL they have extra value on ST so that were the two teams put them also as WR/ST players.

 

Look at Dallas...did they draft Dez Bryant (WR) as a punt returner? Hell no. Did the Cardinals draft their statring CB as a punt returner? No. So the whole point that YOU fail to agree with is this, if a player has value playing other spots on the teams other than what he is drafted for coaches will use that talent no matter what you and I say or think. So if Melton(DT) carries the ball or blocks from the FB position, Weems/Thomas(WR), Hester(WR) play ST so be it. I'm for whatever makes the Bears win games.

[jason]

Now I see your point ...you have none. Now you are agreeing with me when you say Weems and Thomas were drafted as WRs, but now play on STs. that the whole point!!!!! they are WR!!!!!!!!!

Now I never said that Weems and Thomas will be playing WR more than special teams...I agree that they will play ST more than WR but they are still WR's so that is a moot point you are trying to make.

Now the Redskins drafted Thomas as a WR and the Falcons drafted Weems as a WR because they played that in college and tore it up doing so. now when they got to the NFL they have extra value on ST so that were the two teams put them also as WR/ST players.

 

Look at Dallas...did they draft Dez Bryant (WR) as a punt returner? Hell no. Did the Cardinals draft their statring CB as a punt returner? No. So the whole point that YOU fail to agree with is this, if a player has value playing other spots on the teams other than what he is drafted for coaches will use that talent no matter what you and I say or think. So if Melton(DT) carries the ball or blocks from the FB position, Weems/Thomas(WR), Hester(WR) play ST so be it. I'm for whatever makes the Bears win games.

 

You could potentially be the mose dense person to ever post on this forum. You contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. If they no longer play WR, they are not WRs. Why don't you understand that? The draft has nothing to do with the game if the players are moved to another position because of their lack of production/ability/opportunity at their original position.

 

Summarization...

A- Weems and Thomas are now ST players. That's all there is to it. If a player can't cut it at their drafted position, but they are talented elsewhere, they may make a team's roster at another position. That makes them the new position, not the one in which they were drafted. That topic of talent is why I was in favor of...

B- Devin Hester's position change. Devin Hester didn't really have a position when he was drafted, was drafted as an athlete, became an amazing returner, and had more raw ability than perhaps any player since Barry Sanders. A player like that you try to find opportunities for. But even someone as immensely physically talented as Hester initially struggled. That initial struggle is why I'm against...

C- Henry Melton playing FB. Him playing FB doesn't make a lot of sense since he hasn't done it in a while, he isn't a dominant performer at his current position, the initial struggle is likely, the likelihood of injury increases, the Bears already have a FB on the roster, and already have two starting-quality RBs on the roster.

 

Your last point is stupid for two reasons:

1. Nobody on this board has influence, so there is no point bringing it up. Again.

2. You don't know that the change will be positive. Neither do the coaches. And that's the entire point of having a board like this, where we get to pontificate on what the players, coaches, GMs, etc. should do since we don't have influence (see #1)