scs787 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 IMO the writing is already on the walls but we shall certainly see...I think it's gonna be a fun year. I like the dink and doink offense I think it'll be successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 I know you guys like Trestman, but it seems like counting our chickens before they hatch to start worrying about who Cutler will throw the deep ball to now that he's sure to have loads of time to stand in the pocket. And if all we need is fast, we've already got Devin Hester, problem solved. But my guess is we should be worrying more about our WRs being good. Marshall being that high a percentage of the offense was a refreshing change because it means we've finally got an elite WR, but it shouldn't be our long term strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Edit: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Last comment on this subject. The larger point of all of this revolves around the Bears needing to become a more dynamic offense with players who have complimentary skill sets. The Saints are the standard for offensive efficiency and excellence. They are good because they have a Hall of Fame quarterback in combination with the vast array of varying skill sets between their receivers, TE's, and Rb's. Marcus Colston is different from Lance Moore, who's different from Devery Henderson. Pierre Thomas is different from Darren Sproles. Jimmy Graham is one of the fastest TE's in football. Everyone brings something different to the table. Brandon Marshall and Alshon Jeffery do not compliment each other. They both have very similar skill sets. Earl Bennett doesn't provide you with any complimentary skill either because like the other two, he is also more of a posession receiver. If the Bears want to become a dangerous offensive force, they need to add more players who aren't the same. It's just common sense. Too many of the same guys makes the offense more predictable and easier to defend. If the Bears want to become a dangerous offensive force, they need a real offensive line and a real TE. WR would be my last choice to address on offense other than RB which does not need to be addressed. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 It's yet to be seen of course but with the move to an offensive minded coach I can't imagine it will get ignored again. Idk who was saying the play calling would be better but it sure wasn't me, our OC last year was an OL coach disguised as a OC. Jay was holding onto the ball wayyyyyy to long last year because he rarely had a safety valve underneath, I think that aspect alone will make the offense better. It doesn't matter how many steps you take if you're still holding onto the ball for as long as he did. It's hard to imagine the backs won't play a huge part in the offense....You got Trestman who once had Charlie Garner have 91 REC and 934 receiving yards. Plus you got Kromer coming over from the Saints where there backs bearly had 100 more receptions than our backs. If Forte stays healthy all year and doesn't have more than 70 REC I will be somewhat shocked. I'm so sick of hearing that. He really didn't hold on to the ball too long in normal circumstances. It's just messed up perspective from Bears' fans who were disappointed with Jay, and the offense. How in the hell can anyone honestly say he held on to the ball "wayyyyyy too long" when he almost never had time to get to a second read. Aaron Rodgers holds on to the ball for ridiculous amounts of time while waiting for his 2nd, 3rd, 4th read. Cutler doesn't do this because he rarely had time to do so. Every once in a while? Sure. But unless you consider holding it beyond the first read when the first read is blanketed as holding it way too long, then it's just BS. The next time Cutler has consecutive plays where he has a comfortable pocket that allows him to look at a 2nd or 3rd read will be his first with the Bears. As for the rest of your post, I agree. The RBs will play a much larger role in the passing game this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinger226 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 If the Bears want to become a dangerous offensive force, they need a real offensive line and a real TE. WR would be my last choice to address on offense other than RB which does not need to be addressed. Peace We will be cutting Hester and we do need to address WR, but we can do that in a latter round. After OL,TE,MLB, we need to address that , just not with a high pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Knox retired officially? If so, I cannot blame him. I think 100% of us wish him the best of health. "TEAM NEWS: The Bears have terminated the contract of WR Johnny Knox this morning." Per Bears facebook page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 http://www.suntimes.com/sports/18209031-41...y-football.html Johnny's retirement looks official... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 If the Bears want to become a dangerous offensive force, they need a real offensive line and a real TE. WR would be my last choice to address on offense other than RB which does not need to be addressed. Peace Yeah they need all of those things, including more WR depth. I'm not really arguing which is more important. You need more than 3 true receivers on your roster. Weems is more or less a wasted roster spot because he's not going to give you anything at WR despite being listed as one even though he plays special teams. You also have to factor in Bennet's health issues he's had in the last couple years. The guy can't stay on the field. Phil Emery agrees with me. He spoke about needing more play makers on offense and talked about some of the same things that I'm talking about now, in regards to speed. You need a vertical threat on the field that compliments Marshall and Jeffery. Do they need to spend big money on a FA WR? No. Do they need to spend a 1st round pick on a WR? No. But there really is no valid argument out there to make saying the Bears don't need to add to that position. We just came off a season where Brandon Marshall caught 89 more passes than our next leading receiver! Not even combining all of them together, including the TE, equaled the total number of balls Marshall caught this season. That is god awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearFan2000 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Wishing Knox the best, I think this is the best thing for him. Living a normal or fairly normal life after such a horrific injury in and of itself is a victory for him. I honestly didn't want to see him play again, the risk is not worth it if I were in his shoes. I've had respect for him and hope he can just enjoy his family. Classy guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Yeah they need all of those things, including more WR depth. I'm not really arguing which is more important. You need more than 3 true receivers on your roster. Weems is more or less a wasted roster spot because he's not going to give you anything at WR despite being listed as one even though he plays special teams. You also have to factor in Bennet's health issues he's had in the last couple years. The guy can't stay on the field. Phil Emery agrees with me. He spoke about needing more play makers on offense and talked about some of the same things that I'm talking about now, in regards to speed. You need a vertical threat on the field that compliments Marshall and Jeffery. Do they need to spend big money on a FA WR? No. Do they need to spend a 1st round pick on a WR? No. But there really is no valid argument out there to make saying the Bears don't need to add to that position. We just came off a season where Brandon Marshall caught 89 more passes than our next leading receiver! Not even combining all of them together, including the TE, equaled the total number of balls Marshall caught this season. That is god awful. They don't need to add to that position before they address the issues I outlined. They can address WR with a cheap FA or a 5th or 6th round pick. However, If they do not address o-line then Emery should be fired. I am tired of watching Cutler get beat like a dog year after year. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Yeah they need all of those things, including more WR depth. I'm not really arguing which is more important. You need more than 3 true receivers on your roster. Weems is more or less a wasted roster spot because he's not going to give you anything at WR despite being listed as one even though he plays special teams. You also have to factor in Bennet's health issues he's had in the last couple years. The guy can't stay on the field. Phil Emery agrees with me. He spoke about needing more play makers on offense and talked about some of the same things that I'm talking about now, in regards to speed. You need a vertical threat on the field that compliments Marshall and Jeffery. Do they need to spend big money on a FA WR? No. Do they need to spend a 1st round pick on a WR? No. But there really is no valid argument out there to make saying the Bears don't need to add to that position. We just came off a season where Brandon Marshall caught 89 more passes than our next leading receiver! Not even combining all of them together, including the TE, equaled the total number of balls Marshall caught this season. That is god awful. Just to clarify, if it wasn't clear in my posts, my argument is not that they don't need to add to it, my argument is the bold statement I highlight in your post. IMO they don't need one in the 2nd either.....But that's at this point, my view could change after free agency. As of right now I just think our first 3 picks should be a combo of OL/TE/LB...If they bring in a TE in FA and/or bring 54 and Roach or FA replacements then sure lets go WR in the 2nd. Also good luck to Knox in future endeavors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 They don't need to add to that position before they address the issues I outlined. They can address WR with a cheap FA or a 5th or 6th round pick. However, If they do not address o-line then Emery should be fired. I am tired of watching Cutler get beat like a dog year after year. Peace In regards to the draft, they should address whatever position gives them the best player. If there is a better WR available to them than at any other position when they are picking in rounds 1-2, they should take the WR. I despise the notion that we must address a specific position in each round because it eliminates any other possibilities of taking a better player from another position of need. It's an ignorant way of drafting. Just to clarify, if it wasn't clear in my posts, my argument is not that they don't need to add to it, my argument is the bold statement I highlight in your post. IMO they don't need one in the 2nd either.....But that's at this point, my view could change after free agency. As of right now I just think our first 3 picks should be a combo of OL/TE/LB...If they bring in a TE in FA and/or bring 54 and Roach or FA replacements then sure lets go WR in the 2nd. Where we seem to differ is in my approach to taking the best player that is available from a positional need rather than drafting for specific positions in each round. I think that is the most sensible way to draft. If you want a LT but Lane Johnson isn't there, do you really want to reach for another LT who doesn't belong at pick 20? I would hope not. That is why I'm not ruling out the possibility of taking another player from another position that isn't OL in the early rounds of the draft. If there's a better player at LB or WR or TE, I'm taking that guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daventry Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 In regards to the draft, they should address whatever position gives them the best player. If there is a better WR available to them than at any other position when they are picking in rounds 1-2, they should take the WR. I despise the notion that we must address a specific position in each round because it eliminates any other possibilities of taking a better player from another position of need. It's an ignorant way of drafting. I tend to agree on that one, we can always look to fill positions in FA or trades if we don't meet our needs in the draft. There aren't many positions that an excellent player would go unused.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 In regards to the draft, they should address whatever position gives them the best player. If there is a better WR available to them than at any other position when they are picking in rounds 1-2, they should take the WR. I despise the notion that we must address a specific position in each round because it eliminates any other possibilities of taking a better player from another position of need. It's an ignorant way of drafting. Where we seem to differ is in my approach to taking the best player that is available from a positional need rather than drafting for specific positions in each round. I think that is the most sensible way to draft. If you want a LT but Lane Johnson isn't there, do you really want to reach for another LT who doesn't belong at pick 20? I would hope not. I'm leaving it open to any combination of the 3, and not exclusively looking at LT (As I'm part of Webb nation =p). I'm not saying we HAVE to go OL first, LB 2nd, TE 4th . At this point, before FA if Ogletree is there at 20 he's my pick, if not then you take the best OL piece no matter where he plays. Since we don't have a 3rd I wouldn't be against reaching if we had to to get a guy we want at any of those 3 positions. Should be a lot of what I believe to be "impact" TEs going between our pick in the 2nd and 4th. I wouldn't hate Gavin Escobar or Levine Toilolo in the 2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scs787 Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 The way I view taking these players is simple: Every time your team is on the clock, look at your positional needs and determine which player is the best for his position. Then you figure out which one of those players is better at his position than one of the other guys are at their positions. Like what you said in the PFF thread (above) only I don't view WR in the upper echelon of needs with TE, OL, and LB. It's a need but not as much as the other 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selection7 Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 I'm going to miss exclaiming "Johnny Knox!" in a fast, clipped speech (like Johnny Cochran) every time he caught a pass. In fact, if Hester leaves us, I guess I'll have to do the same for "Delvin History". Brandon Marshall is a boring name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 In regards to the draft, they should address whatever position gives them the best player. If there is a better WR available to them than at any other position when they are picking in rounds 1-2, they should take the WR. I despise the notion that we must address a specific position in each round because it eliminates any other possibilities of taking a better player from another position of need. It's an ignorant way of drafting. Where we seem to differ is in my approach to taking the best player that is available from a positional need rather than drafting for specific positions in each round. I think that is the most sensible way to draft. If you want a LT but Lane Johnson isn't there, do you really want to reach for another LT who doesn't belong at pick 20? I would hope not. That is why I'm not ruling out the possibility of taking another player from another position that isn't OL in the early rounds of the draft. If there's a better player at LB or WR or TE, I'm taking that guy. I think the difference is, you appear to separate the two concepts of BPA and need, when, in reality, virtually no team does that. If you have 4 or 5 ranked needs going into the draft, where 1 is the most important and 5 is the 5th most important, you have to factor that in as well. If the BPA happens to be from your #5 position, and no other player from needs 1-4 come close to #5's rating, then you probably go with #5. But grabbing the BPA even though he's at position #9 of need doesn't make a lot of sense to me. One, because there's a greater chance he doesn't start and doesn't have a high impact. Two, you have too much money invested at one position. Three, even if that player does start there is a decent chance he won't be able to excel because players from position 1-5 are still going to suck. BPA only takes you so far when you need 22 guys to fill a roster. This ain't the NBA where one dude can absolutely carry a team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 I'm leaving it open to any combination of the 3, and not exclusively looking at LT (As I'm part of Webb nation =p). I'm not saying we HAVE to go OL first, LB 2nd, TE 4th . At this point, before FA if Ogletree is there at 20 he's my pick, if not then you take the best OL piece no matter where he plays. Since we don't have a 3rd I wouldn't be against reaching if we had to to get a guy we want at any of those 3 positions. Should be a lot of what I believe to be "impact" TEs going between our pick in the 2nd and 4th. I wouldn't hate Gavin Escobar or Levine Toilolo in the 2nd. You know what? I'm pretty much saying we have to go OL in the first, or second, or both. There is an absolute ton of top shelf talent on the OL this year, the likes of which we may never see again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 I think the difference is, you appear to separate the two concepts of BPA and need, when, in reality, virtually no team does that. If you have 4 or 5 ranked needs going into the draft, where 1 is the most important and 5 is the 5th most important, you have to factor that in as well. If the BPA happens to be from your #5 position, and no other player from needs 1-4 come close to #5's rating, then you probably go with #5. But grabbing the BPA even though he's at position #9 of need doesn't make a lot of sense to me. One, because there's a greater chance he doesn't start and doesn't have a high impact. Two, you have too much money invested at one position. Three, even if that player does start there is a decent chance he won't be able to excel because players from position 1-5 are still going to suck. BPA only takes you so far when you need 22 guys to fill a roster. This ain't the NBA where one dude can absolutely carry a team. It doesn't me either. Which is why I don't have #9 need as being an option to draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 It doesn't me either. Which is why I don't have #9 need as being an option to draft. So where is "#4 speed receiver" on the list of needs? I'd say, at the very least, the following are ahead of that need (in no specific order): 1. LT 2. RG 3. C 4. LG 5. MLB 6. SLB 7. TE 8. Backup QB 9. CB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 So where is "#4 speed receiver" on the list of needs? I'd say, at the very least, the following are ahead of that need (in no specific order): 1. LT 2. RG 3. C 4. LG 5. MLB 6. SLB 7. TE 8. Backup QB 9. CB Then your idea is we go into next season with same guys lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears4Ever_34 Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 So where is "#4 speed receiver" on the list of needs? I'd say, at the very least, the following are ahead of that need (in no specific order): 1. LT 2. RG 3. C 4. LG 5. MLB 6. SLB 7. TE 8. Backup QB 9. CB OT, OG, TE, LB, and WR in no particular order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.