nfoligno

I don't think it was a real big deal. He got into a fight two years ago at a party, and was arrested for assault. He got a 4 game suspension for that. To my understanding, that was his only issue. He was a highly touted HS kid who did little to nothing after going to college, and his junior season was further hampered by the fight and suspension. His senior year brought a new coach and program, and Davis became a big part of the offense, playing both TE and DE. But I think the combination of (a) While not much history, he did have the fight and suspension ( While he did seem to break out his senior year, that was the only year he did much of anything. © VERY raw as a blocker, as it is simply not something he was ever asked to do.

Mentioned this before, but as much as I might agree, I think you will have a much more difficult time convincing Hester or his agent. We as fans ALWAYS talk about incentive laiden deals, but how often due you actually see a player sign one of those deals. They want the up front, guaranteed money. They do not want deals they have to earn. They want their money now.

LOL. Could she not find a nice bear fan though?

Hey nimrod, You misunderstand, as you often do. I am not supportive of Hester on this. I think he is a dumbass. He has no position of leverage. I am simply talking about his value. You said "he hasn't proven he is close to Berrian yet". My point is that he has proven he is as valuable as Berrian. Does that mean I think we should simply bend over and give him whatever he wants? Nope. I am simply talking about what I consider his value. Personally, I do nothing w/o him in camp. If he does show up to camp, I have no problem negotiating w/ him, but I have a feeling my offer would not come close to what he and his agent want. To bad, so sad for him, as I am not going to pay him #1 WR money w/o him having a proven jack as a WR, much less as a #1 WR.

They did it for Urlacher, why not Devin Hester? Totally different situation. Urlacher is a proven player. Hester is a proven return man, and if he were simply seeking to be the top paid return man, that would be one thing, but he wants to be paid like an upper tier WR, which is a position he is totally un-proven at.

Hasn't he? Last year, Hester had 8 TDs to Berrian's 5. The year before, they both had 6. Last year, Berrian had 71 catches for 950 yards. Hester had 20 catches for 300 yards PLUS 43 KO returns for 934 yards PLUS 42 punt returns for 650 yards. Combined, Hester had 105 touches for just under 1,900 yards. Yea, return yards scew the numbers, but at the same time, the point is Hester role/contribution did as much for the offense, IMHO, as Berrian. On a more consistent basis, Hester helped the field position of the offense. While Berrian would go possessions w/o so much as a catch, Berrian always started our possessions w/ good field position (except after a turnover). If Hester started us at the 40 instead of the 20, is that really any different from a WR that catches 2 for 20 to get us to the 40?

I guess there is a difference in what we consider #1 money. Did Berrian get #1 money? Sure. But it was not the high end #1 money like Fitz just got, or others have, or others are likely to get. Berrian got paid #1 money, but I don't think it was high end #1. Again, I am just saying what I think Hester's agent would say.

1. Never said he was even a good number 2 WR right now. He isn't even a proven #3. I never said different. But I would argue his contribution to the offense is about equal to that of an average #2 WR. Let's say you have a #2 WR who gets you about 60 catches for 750 yards and 5 TDs. You do not think the contribution Hester's play provides that much? What does a WR do? He tries to help the offense move the ball downfield. If, because of Hester, we start at the 40 instead of the 20, has he not accomplished the same feat? 2. You ask if he didn't return another ball because teams kicked away from him, would he still have the value. I would argue recent history has proven that no matter how insane it may seem, coaches will continue to kick to him. W/ that said, he would absolutely still have value. Take Barry Bonds. If he never hit another home run because every time he came up to bat, he was walked, would he still not have value? The team has to put a potential run on base to avoid the home run, similar to how opponents would have to put us in better scoring position just to avoid the home run return. 3. You ask if his value is the same if the offense can never take advantage of the field position he provides. Again, absolutely. If you defense sucks, do you value the punter who pinned then at the 2 any less? No. I would further argue that, even if our offense doesn't step up and take advantage, that field position helps the defense keep the games close. Lets say we start at the 40, rather than the 20, which we have seen all too often, whether due to a return or pooch kick. Now the offense goes 3 and out. From the 40, you have a chance to pin the opponent deep in their own territory. From your own 20 though, they are more likely to start closer to mid field than their own end zone. That puts greater pressure on your defense. I agree he should not be paid like a #1 WR. At the same time, I simply do not think you realize the value he brings to the team solely as a returner. You say pay him more than any other returner, but that is even questionable, as no other returner has had close to the impact to compare to.

Hey, you are preaching to the choir, but the reality is, while we as fans always talk about incentive laiden deals, how often do players go for that? Sure, they have incentives thrown into their deals, but those incentives are an extra, not the meat of the deal, which is basically what you are proposing. Hester would probably say, "yea, I'll take a deal like Berrian got, and you can then add incentives to make it a deal w/ the potential of Fitzgerald's".

Sounds nice, but... (1) We hit Berrian deep once in a while, and that did nothing to make defenses play us honest. Until we start connecting deep on a more consistent basis, defenses are not going to alter how they defend us. (2) as nice as it sounds, if you simply send Hester deep all the time (a) it makes him easier to defend, as defenses can simply play way off him and ( your going to kill him making him run nothing but a bunch of 40s.

Incentives are always thrown out there by fans, but rarely is that very logical solution what players/agents accept. Players and agents want the big guaranteed bucks. Regarding Hester, I too do not see him ever becoming a #1 WR, or another Steve Smith. I think he is a WR that can provide some explosive, highlight reel plays, but I just do not see him bringing the consistent level of play you see from #1 WRs. The further problem is, I do not think we have the surrounding talent to develop him as a WR. If we had a great veteran QB, and a competant OC, then maybe I could see more potential in him at WR, but w/ what/who we have? We have a hard enough time developing WRs who know how to play WR, much less develop a player who still has to learn the position.

Hester for Brady Quinn? I like the idea of getting a QB, but how many young QBs are out there who would be considered in a trade. Most young QBs we might have any interest in are not QBs a team is likely to part w/. There just are not that many good young QBs. WRs on the other hand are far more in abundance.

I understand what you are saying, but let me ask you this. You question what a good OC, or I would throw out there, a good offense in general, could do w/ him. No question. I mentioned this before, but imagine if he were on Indy, and teams had to choose between giving him the ball or Manning good field position. Ouch. But look at it now from the opposite angle. How likely are we to get much more out of him that what we have. Sure, he may play some WR, but w/ our QBs and offense, do you really think he could ever become a great WR, or even just a consistent one? And I hate to say this, but how likely is that to change in the near future. Unless Rex/Orton pull something out of their arces, we are likely going to be looking at a new QB against next year, and I think it a good bet it will be a young QB to boot. That means a couple more years of an offense building. How likely is Hester to break out under those circumstances. So while I do not question his value for a team like Indy (or a team w/ an offense than can develop more of his potential), I do have to wonder how much of that potential our offense can actually tap into. I would not give him away for less than a 1st. Even if we were offered a 1st, it may not be enough. A 1st offered by Oakland and a 1st offered by Indy are two very different values. But a 1st and another top 3 round pick may be enough. I repeat, MAY be enough. Even then I am not certain, but I will say this. I do not consider him untradable. It is really just a matter of whether we can get enough value for him. Of coarse, Angelo would probably trade him just to move up in the 2nd round, only to trade back on draft day.

$1.5m/yr? Okay, I think Hester is just plain stupid for this holdout. I think he is not worth (today) #1 WR money, as he wants. But not worth more than $1.5 per year? Come on. Backups who do nothing more than pull splinters out of their arces make that much and more. I personally think Hester today is worth average #2 WR money. While he has not proven himself as a WR, his contributions to the offense as a returner are pretty damn profound. He scores as many TDs as any of our receivers. He puts the offense in good/great field position, either due to a return or a team kicking away from him. So, in my eyes, there is no question Hester is due a raise, and is worth WR money. But saying a player is worth WR money is a far cry from whether you are talking #1 WR money or average number two. His return ability combined w/ his WR potential, and our expectations of him at WR, IMHO equals average #2 WR money (not talking Boldin or Housyourmama). But that is not what Hester wants. Hester wants #1 money, and for him to get that, he needs to prove he can play WR. IMHO, if Hester can prove himself a solid starting WR, that would be enough (w/ his return ability) to get #1 WR money. He doesn't have to be a #1 WR to get that money, but does have to prove he can play the freaking position first.

Agree and Disagree. I agree Hester does not have to prove himself as a #1 WR in order to be paid like one, but he does have to prove he is a capable WR first. By capable, I am thinking starting grade. Due to his return talents, he does not have to prove himself as a #1 Wr to be paid like one. His ability as a returner compensates. But he does have to prove he can be a solid WR first, before he can be paid like a #1 Wr. Personally, I think this is pretty stupid of Hester. If he showed up to camp and started to light things up, he leverage would be much higher. But staying at home, making threats, and simply falling further and further back on the depth chart is doing him little good. This is not like if Briggs or Urlacher stayed home for a while. They have nothing to prove, and would immediately return to their starters role. Hester was a VERY questionable starter to begin w/, and a holdout could find him begging the staff for playing time (on offense).

1. Starting where you finished, "Could this be a good thing". IMHO, no way. If we were not trying to move him to WR, and he was simply going to be our return man, then his holdout would not be nearly as huge of an issue. But he is trying to learn a still relatively new position. He showed last season how behind the curve he is at WR. Similar IMHO to a rookie, he needs to be in camp, working and learning the WR position. 2. I personally think his value could be greater than just a 1st. Consider his impact for many of the upper tier teams, using Indy as an example. Right now, teams are more and more kicking away from Hester. W/ so little to fear of our offense, than can do this and sacrifice field position. But what if your choice was between Hester and Payton Manning. Pick your evil. Likely, Hester would receive far more kicks and opportunities, and his impact would be even greater. But these teams are not going to have as good of a draft pick. That is the downside. So a 1st and even a 3rd from a team like Indy just doesn't have as awesome value. But I am not sure teams expected to suck would be likely to give up a 1st, as that pick would be too valuable. 3. In the end, I would have to look at the offer. I am not sure any player on our team is untradable (not counting contracts) w/ Harris being the closest thing to an exception. If I were offered two 1st round picks, I think I would take that regardless what team made the offer (except GB/Minny). If it were a 1st and 3rd, then it may depend on who the team is. If it were just a 1st, then maybe if it were a team like Oak (insert your favorite bottom 5 team), then maybe. Nothing lower than a 1st. If I felt we were a SB team this year, then I would not trade Hester for even two 1st round picks, but I do not see us being "that" good, and thus adding high draft picks to better the team moving forward should be looked at.

1. Congrats and GOOD LUCK. 2. IMHO, it is best when you have a wife who supports your Bear's addiction, w/o actually being a fan themselves. I have PLENTY of time w/ my wife and Bear time is a great opportunity to get away and be w/ the guys. For the same reason I have not taught my wife how to play golf, I am quite happy she has little interest in the bears. About the only connection she has w/ the bears is, she loves shopping and buying the kids bears stuff, which the kids eat up. 3. You are so right about one thing. Get ready for an increase in shopping bills due to Sundays. In my house, I can play golf, or go to the bar for the bears, or whatever, but since I get my time, she gets her's, and her's is ALWAYS spent shopping.

My daughter married a Packers fan, so I have to ask I hope you didn't pay for the wedding

Company paid cell phones is pretty common. In my company, even I have a cell phone, and not many are lower than I. Especially for any who travel for business, company cell phones are pretty standard.

A lot of the players Wash brought in were considered class act players, but that didn't matter much. Take Archuleta. He was considered a very high character player, but simply failed once joining Wash. Personally, I think Taylor should do well. There is quite a bit of talent on the defense, and they are run be a solid coach. Very solid IMHO. Often, Wash would add big names w/o thinking twice whether that player fit their scheme or not. I think the addition of Taylor is different. He sort of transcends scheme. He is a pass rushing demon who is also effective against the run, and can even drop into coverage (as Rex knows too well).

Wanna bet the fans of every one of those teams are also looking at their schedule and making predictions, and wanna further bet that nearly 100% of them are chalking up a win the week they play us. W/ the exception of the falcons, I do not see a team on the list I think is so inferior to us they are a near automatic. Crap. We were SWEPT by the freaking Lions last year. The Lions!

Love it. Now we just have to hope Kevin Jones goes a similar route as his cousin did. Thomas Jones was a 1st round bust for his original team, but after he signed w/ us, became a very solid and productive runner.

I said 100+ catches which is a 20% improvement. I think I remember the Bears TEs last yr were in the top 10 in the league (combined). I think a 20% improvement would be fantastic What are your expectations for Olsen? I look at Olsen and see a TE who can be among the league leaders. Gonzalez (99), Witten (96), Winslow (82), Gates (75). But w/ Clark on the roster, I do not see how he hits this level. And if he does, and they combine for 100, then Clark is sitting on a minimal number of catches. That is my thing. I fear Clark will hold Olsen back. Not intentionally, but I fear that having to rotate between the two TEs will not allow Olsen to come into his own. Who were our Qbs those 2 yrs? Quinn, Hutch, Orton (rookie yr), etc? Our QBs sucked. Yea, the QBs sucked, but other TEs have done well w/ weak QBs. See Miami for an example. We were weak at WR, thus the stage was set for a TE to step up. I said before I don't shoulder Clark with all the blame for his lower stat seasons, but at the same time, I go back to this. You say Clark has been consistently good since we added him. I counter by asking why, for the last several years, everyone had felt TE was among our top needs if that was true. And if that is true, why did we spend a 1st on Olsen is we were set at TE? I really don't remember us giving up alot of money extending him so I don't see this as an issue. Further, I do see him inhibiting Olsen's growth. The money wasn't huge. I believe he got $2m in new bonus money, and around $3m added to his base salary. Not sure about that exactly, but I think I remember $5m in new money, including $2m up front bonus. I am not saying it was a bad deal, money wise. I never said that. I just didn't see the point. If Olsen steps up, Clark simply isn't necessary. If Olsen doesn't step up, I believe we could have signed Clark just as easily (if we wanted him) when he hit FA. And though it wasn't a lot of money, it did create a bigger cap hit for him, and that is money I would have rather ear-marked for other players. I believe Wale's contract expires this yr or next. Wale has had 2 good yrs and 2 crappy yrs. Further, I think you also need to look at turnovers. Alex has forced 14 turnovers during that time to Wale's 9. He is signed through 2009. You say two crappy seasons? His weaker two seasons saw 5 and 6.5 sacks, which is .5 less than Brown's best sack total. As for turnovers, I would argue RDEs usually have more turnovers, as they hit the QB from the blindside, which simply creates more opportunity for turnovers, compared to the LDE, where the QB usually sees him coming and has more time to secure the ball. Wale never lived up to the expectations from when we traded for him, yet at the same time, I still think he is our best DE. IMHO, it would be a mistake to cut him.

My thoughts are you will see more 2 tight end sets and you will also see Olsen split out alot. I see them having 100+ catches between them this yr. I hope to see more 2 TE sets, but I have seen/heard nothing that leads me to this belief. 100 catches between them? Sorry, but that would not impress me too much. They had a combined 83 this past year, in an inept offense and w/ Olsen as a rookie. Grabbing 100 between them would not do much for me, nor would it likely mean we were using 2 TE sets. They combined for 83 with them splitting time. I have no issues with them rewarding Clark because he has been a very consistent player since the first day he joined the team I guess those two seasons w/ 24 catches and less than 300 yards don't count? Not saying that was all his fault, but at the same time, I simply question the very consistent comment. If Clark were so good, why did we spend a 1st on Olsen. If Clark were so good, why did pretty much everyone want/expect us to draft a TE the year before that? Clark was never more than a "nice" TE. IMHO, that is still what he is, but w/ the way the rest of our WRs look, he looks more. To me, it just didn't make much sense. If Olsen steps up, Clark is nothing but a backup. Even if Olsen doesn't step up, Clark is still likely no more than what he has been. Sorry, but next off-season, he would be a 32 year old solid TE, but no more. His price would not be high, and not likely difficult to re-sign him then. However, if Olsen breaks out, there would not be much need. I think they were rewarding him for being a good soldier. Why? Because he lost his starting job and didn't make a huge issue of it? For that, they gave him a new deal? Further, I don't think they plan on keeping "The Prince" past this yr so they wanted to lock Alex down. Why? Wale is one year older than Brown, and is a better DE. In the last 4 years, Wale has 30 sacks to Brown's 23.5. Further, Brown's sacks usually come in bunches. He will get 3 sacks in a game, and go w/o a sack for 6. I would also say Wale is a better run defender. Why do you think we would get rid of Wale, who has been our best and most consistent DE?

- Clark - While Olsen has not broken out yet, can it not be argued that extending Clark may hold Olsen back? W/ his extension, he isn't going to simply ride the pine, so even if Olsen is looking ready to breakout, he is still going to have to alternate w/ Clark. - Brown - I realize the rest have not broken out either, but Brown still had two years left on the extension we already signed him too. I simply question the need to sign a player in Brown's situation. He was not coming off some great season. He was not due to be a FA, nor was he due to be a FA after the next season. He wasn't on his rookie contract, and thus not some way underpaid player (Hester). I simply saw no reason to provide him another extension. In the grand scheme of things, we are not talking big bucks or deals that kill our cap. I know that. But in terms of strategy, I just do not get it. While their deals are not great, at the same time, they did get money that could otherwise go to Hester or Urlacher. Or it could have been money for Briggs/Harris in roster bonus so their future cap hits would be even less. I do not have a problem w/ the philosophy of keeping your own, but at the same time, I think you also need to add. Spending all your cap dollars to retain your own sounds great coming off a SB season, but coming off a sub .500 season?