
nfoligno
Super Fans-
Posts
4,931 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by nfoligno
-
Trust me. I understand the arguments for Boldin. Hey, I like him a lot myself as he has done well for my FF team several times. For me, it really comes down to: (a) As good as he may be, if we don't upgrade the OL, he just can't help us, despite his past numbers. Getting a player like Boldin sounds great, but if all he is doing is running 5 yard routes, you are basically wasting him. ( Money. As I said, he wants to be paid, and paid a lot. I just don't think we plan to spend a ton of money, and even if we did sign him, I think it would come at the cost of the other positions of need. Ignore the 3rd round pick for a moment and pretend he was a FA. I am sure you would want to sign him, but what if you were told you could have him, but would then not be able to sign a FS, CB, DL or OL. The money it would take to sign him would negate your ability to sign others. Would you still do it? © I am in the minority maybe, but I simply think we have some outstanding potential now at WR. To me, it isn't our WRs holding us back but the OL. If we fix the OL, I think Bears fans would be shocked at the ability our current group would show. I think, with a fixed OL, we could have an elite passing attack. We don't need, IMHO, a player like Boldin to have that. We need an OL that can sustain blocks long enough for our WRs to run their routes.
-
I hope that you are right about this one. I just hope he doesn't turn out to be another (former fellow Sooner) Mark Bradley. And having egg on one's face is not flattering. Again, Iglesais could have very easily been held back because of Turner's lack of ingenuity. Or was it because Hester was holding the spot??? Hmmm.... I go with Turner's lack of creativity or adaptability. What I think it sort of comes down to is Turner, and I would make a couple points to make that case. One. Turner really does not use many WRs. This past season, he really only would have 3 active WRs in each game, as the 4th would be Davis, who really had no part on the offense and was a special teams specialist again this year. I would argue Turner was similar in previous years too. Turner relies on a few WRs, but is not high on rotation. Even when we would go w/ a 4 WR set, it was often w/ Olsen motioning out. So if you are not part of the top 3, you are not really going to get much of a look. Besides Iglesias, DA was evidence of that issue this past year. Two. Turner isn't very creative. Iglesias came in and was pegged as basically being Bennetts backup. As Bennett was a starter, and never went down with injury, there was never a thought of Iglesias coming in. Knox got lucky in that the player he was more considered the backup for (DA) went down with injury. Knox having the speed was being developed as a slot receiver already, and after DA went down, he was given the shot. If Bennett went down, I question if we would have even seen Knox. Similar, the previous year, Bennett was stuck in deep depth, and regardless how many players stunk up the field, he was not given an opportunity. Hell, this past year, if it were not for Hester's injury, we would have likely never seen DA. Sure, it is possible all the pre-draft reports on Iglesias were wrong. The reports all claimed him to be a superiour route runner w/ great hands, and one who picked up playbooks easily. Yet he comes to the bears and its the opposite. I am simply not sure I buy into that. I think others were ahead of him, and he was simply burried on the depth chart. Time will tell. Martz is about the exact opposite. Martz is the sort play more 4 WR sets w/ 4 actual WRs, and the sort who will utilzie all the WRs on his roster. If Iglesias doesn't step up under Martz, then I will have likely been proven wrong. Time will tell. For the record, and again, pre-draft reports could be just totally wrong, but Iglesias is a very different WR than Bradley. Bradley was never even a starter in college, and his learning curve was great. Combine that need for development with the fact he could never stay on the field (injury) long enough to actually develop, and his doom was not a surprise. He came to the league very raw, and wasn't able to develop. Iglesais was expected to be "NFL ready" and the sort who could pickup systems far more easily. That didn't happen w/ Turner, but I believe fans will be surprised at the turnaround to come.
-
About everything anyone writes on here is their opinion. Last year, my opinion was the offensive line was the biggest hole. I felt WR was the next biggest hole going into the draft. Free Safety was my next biggest hole. The d-line needed help with O-Gun probably going to leave this year, Harris's diminished play and so on. It was basically the same holes. I'm not trying to get into the Orton vs. Cutler thing, just stating that major holes were on the team, still on the team, but it was ok with you to lose much higher picks in that case. JA while thinking QB was a major need, was also wrong at how he addressed most of the rest of the major needs on the team last year. I don't give his opinion much credit, esp. on the offensive side of the ball. The point I was making was....you said QB was not a need, and I would disagree, as would many others. I realize well it is an opinion board, but your argument (seemed) to imply that QB was in fact not a need, rather than simply how you viewed it. If I said today kicker is not a need, I think you would agree that is closer to fact than opinion. Most would agree. You saying QB was not a need last year I think would fall into the minority. For the record, I full well realize my saying WR is not only a non-need area, but in fact an area of strength, is more in the minority. Also, as stated before, QB (and especially a perceived franchise QB) is an exception to the rules. For most any other player, at most any other position, if you talked about giving up what we did, need or not, I think most fans would scream hell no. Franchise QBs are simply an exception to the rule though. Third round contained the Bears 2 highest picks last year. You say that if your other picks are gone you need an immediate contributer from the round, and then say last year's third rounders were bad examples even tho they didn't play. Yes, you can find good players in the third. No, I don't think you can count on immediate contributers in the third round. The day we drafted those players last year, do you think they were envisioned as day one starters? I don't. On the other hand, if we had drafted players at various other positions, I think they would have. Either way, my point is simply that 3rd round picks definitely have value, especially today as it is the first round of day two. Used to be, the 4th round was very highly regarded as it was the first round after the league gets a breather, and is able to re-examine who is gone and who has fallen. That is now the 3rd round. The 3rd round is still one that has some really great value and talent. Now, does that mean I would not consider trading our 3rd for anyone? No. But I would only consider trading our 3rd round pick for a player at a need position, which I simply do not view WR as being. Boldin's contribution to the team should easily outway the contribution made by any third round pick next year. Depends. If we spent that 3rd on an OL who could start (not uncommon for 3rd round OGs to be immediate starters) I would argue a more solidified OL would have a greater impact that Boldin. If that 3rd rounder became a FS that solidified our secondary, I would argue that contribution would be greater than Boldin. One more point that has not really be touched on. Why does Boldin want out of Az? Money. He wants to be among the top paid WRs in the game, and his agent has pointed to Fitz' contract as a "starting point". I believe, especially w/ the CBA issues, there is a set amount of money on the table for the team to work with. If we trade for Boldin, you have to "pay" him. To do so, IMHO, would likely use up all the funds which may otherwise help other areas of need.
-
Just because Cutler loved him doesn't mean we utilized him. Cutler loved DA and he couldn't even get on the field. When I say "utilized him" I don't just mean putting him out there, or even just throwing him the ball. I mean using him in a way that matches his strengths. When he was drafted, we heard so much about his speed and athleticism and how he could stretch the field, yet in our offense, he was really little more than a short yardage safety valve for Cutler. More than half of his catches were inside 10 yards. A whopping 3 catches for more than 20 yards. Sure, he may have had some drops or something, but I think these stats do really reflect how he was used. If you have Randy Moss, and only run him on short routes, are you utilizing him? If you have Bobby Engram (in his prime) and have him run tons of downfield go routes, are you utilizing him? Just because Olsen was out there doesn't mean we best utilized him. You say he is as over-rated as you get, but he was still a top 10 TE in catches and top 5 in scores. Not bad for a TE who can't really even run downfield routes due to an OL that can't hold a block more than 3 seconds.
-
You're skewing the argument to your favor! And your point I also never said I'd be for giving up our 3rd... I stated a 5th (really a pick not a bottle of booze) and Harris. Talking about the 3rd was more about the current discussion of Boldin's value. Everything has a cost benefit. And the example I give I think the benefits outweigh the costs. And I disagree. Is Boldin worth a 3rd round pick? Sure. No argument there. But a 3rd round pick could also mean a potential starting OL, or FS, or CB. I view those are far more important. One other thing few are really talking about here. Why does Boldin want to bolt Az? Money. He wants a deal similar to Fitzgerald. One, I am not sure I agree he is worth that much, to us or in general. Two, w/ the belief our owners are only going to spend so much money on player contracts, I sure as hell don't want to use up all our allowance on a WR, regardless how good he is, while plugging trash at areas of true need. I think you're a little too high on our WR corps. They are not a glaring need. But a legit bonafide proven big game WR would make Cutler, the WR's, and the running gaem all better... And in turn, that could help the OL. I think it's got a big potential for a trickle down effect. One, I disagree w/ the theory that better WRs improves the OL. I simply feel it the other way around. I understand the argument. If your WRs are good enough, the QB doesn't have to hold the ball as long, thus the OL doesn't have to hold their blocks as long. But (a) I question how consistently you can rely on that and ( that may help on quick, 3 step drops, but regardless how good the WR is, it it still on the OL to hold blocks when receivers run longer developing routes. Two, would a bonafide proven big game WR make Cutler and the rest better? Sure. You can say the same for so many other teams. What I would like though is to instead give your young WRs an opportunity. Are you sure we don't have a Wr on the roster who could be as good, or even better, than Boldin?
-
You were a big fan of the Cutler trade. QB was far from a gaping hole when it was made. This is less 2 less first round picks for as much of an upgrade at WR as Cutler was at QB. One, sorry, but QB is an exception to most every rule, especially when talking about a "franchise QB" Two, QB being "far from a gaping hole" is your opinion. I am not looking to get into a big Orton debate here, but many would argue QB was a sizable hole, including Angelo who declared QB a top priority at the end of the season. Secondly, how much did last years 3rd round picks do for the Bears? A 3rd is a 3rd, even if it is your top pick. Disagree w/ the idea that a 3rd is a 3rd, even if it is your top pick. If it is your top pick, it has a very different meaning. If you have already drafted 1st and 2nd round picks, you can take more risk on a 3rd, or go after a player in the 3rd who is raw and needing more developing. On the other hand, if your 3rd is your top pick, then you need to be looking for an immediate contributor, if not starter. And I question using last year as an example, as those players have not had much of a chance to prove or disprove their worth. How about some other 3rd rounders for us like Briggs, Berrian and even Bennett, who proved a capable starter this past year. Sure, there are examples that go the other way, but the point is we have found some pretty damn good players in the 3rd.
-
I get the opportunity, but you also have to be in a position for an opportunity to make sense. Your a poor person holding some change in your hand. Its all the money in the world you have. You are hungry. Your clothes have more holes than swiss cheese. You are dirty and have no home. You enter a grocery, and they have a great sale on gum. Man, you love gum, and would love to buy some, especially at that price, but then your stomach growls. Gum will do nothing to end your hunger, regardless how good of a deal you can get it for. Opportunities are hard to pass up, but you need to be in a position to take advantage of such opportunities. W/ no 1st or 2nd round pick, (IMHO) a conservative amount set to spend in FA and so many holes, we are simply not in a position to take advantage of such opportunities. Some are saying for a 3rd, no problem. Well, that 3rd is our top pick, and with so many holes, I just can't wrap my head around spending our top pick on a WR, regardless if he is a proven player or not. Even if that 3rd round pick isn't as high as we all would want, regardless, we can't just act like it is a throw away pick. That pick could be used on the OL, DL or secondary, which are true needs. Honestly, at the end of the day, it simply comes down to this for me. I view the WR position as being among our few non-hole units. Further, not only do I view the position as solidified, but I consider it a strength. It just doesn't make sense to me to add a WR when we have so many truly sizable holes.
-
Man, don't even get me started on the way we blitz. It makes me sick. It seems like most all our blitzes come from the same place (inside). So rarely do we seem to blitz from the outside. When we do, it often seems to be effective, in part because it comes as such as surprise. But out blitz also goes back to the DL. We may blitz a lot, but we are not effective doing so. I big reason for that, besides predictability, is that our DL is not good. If none on your DL warrant a double team, that leaves extra blockers free to pickup the blitz. Contrast that w/ our team. Our OL sucks, and we usually needed the TE and RB to help double team DL as our OL was not capable. That meant blitzers were often free to attack the QB. So for me, it still gets back to the DL.
-
I don't think he is our best WR either. Defiantgiant makes that argument. I don't. I think it is understandable for the staff to have viewed him as our best WR last year, but this year, I don't think that is true any longer, and frankly, nor does our staff. If Martz felt Hester was our best WR, he would not be talking about him as a slot option, no matter how great of a slot player he thinks Hester may be. I personally would put DA above Hester, though I might give Hester the edge over the rest as of now. Knox has incredible potential, but does not have consistency in his game, and I think it also must be remembered that we really limited him in terms of playbook. How will he handle having to learn far more? I like Bennett, and while he offers a good level of consistency, he also lacks the big play ability. So I might still give Hester the nod over the rest, but would put DA at the top, though he still has much to prove himself. Then there is my boy Iglesias, who I believe will in the end prove to be our 2nd best WR. If he doesn't develop, I will have pleny of egg on my face, but hey, as I am the only one beating the Iglesias drum, I'll get much cred, right Seriously, I think Iglesais was held back last year much the way Bennett was his first year. I think Iglesias proves enough in camp to earn more snaps, and will only push forward from there. In the end, I think he becomes a #2 starter for us, and w/ a player like DA on the other side, Cutler could have a combo similar to Marshall/Royal.
-
Simply put, you don't have complete faith in Hester's ability to become a better WR. Instead of potential you say the "learning curve" is lacking. When did I say learning curve is lacking, or that I don't have faith. In fact, I was once a critic of the idea of Hester becoming a WR, but since have changed my opinion due to the way I feel he has shown to develop. I do not have faith he will ever become steve smith, but at the same time, I do have faith he will continue to develop and improve. He is already a quality WR, and if he continues to develop and improve, that would be something worth having. And Holt didn't have Cutler throwing to him. Give him a one year deal, see how it works out if not...away he goes. He didn't have Cutler, but Garard isn't an awful QB, and did have 3,600 yards. An unknown young WR did well enough w/ Garrard throwing him the ball. Sorry, but in my opinion, Holt just doesn't have it, and I simply don't think he is worth the time or money, as minimal as that may be. You started the above w/ "simply put". Well, simply put, I have more faith and belief in the WRs currently on our roster than you. Simply put, I do not view WR as a position of need, but in fact, a position of strength. Simply put, I look at our team and see MANY holes which needs serious work. I want to focus on those positions. Simply put, even if he were to come in for the minimum, I would regardless rather just give the time and reps to the young players currently on our roster. One final point. Anyway you slice it, I do not think we are going to have a good team this year. I view this year more as a developmental year or building block. Adding a player like Holt would do little to alter our wins/losses, and would in fact take away time from the young WRs I want to see develop this year so later, when we are an improved team, they are playing at a high level.
-
I hear you on Olsen. I see him as maybe our most talent receiver, when it comes to raw ability, and yet at the same time, maybe the most frustrating. As you mention, he doesn't do well on jump balls. I heard someone in the media comment that despite his height, he plays much smaller. He is what, 6'4, yet struggles to out-jump DBs who are 4, 5 and 6 inches shorter. Part of the thing for me though is this. Have we really utilized him? When we do work him downfield, he seems to do a good job as he is a tough matchup, yet w/ our OL, we were not often able to send him deep. You look at the stud TEs. They can work downfield, in part, because they play on teams w/ OLs able to protect the QB long enough to do so. Due to our OL, we simply have not been able to utilize Olsen the way we would need for him to become a stud TE. Another factor for me is Tice. Everyone has talked about his role working w/ the OL, but Tice is also considered a great mentor of Tes, and I wonder if he can't help Olsen here as well. In the end, part of the reason I don't want to trade Olsen is the belief that more than most, he could become a great player for another team, and that would just piss me off.
-
Yes there are differences but other than TD's, their stats are almost identical. HESTER: (09) 57 / 757 yards with 58.2 avg/game and 3 TD. HOLT - (09) 51 / 722 yards with 48.1 avg / game and no TD's. You can skew this however you want but those numbers are not all that different. Again, unless you count the TD's. And even then Olsen still has a significant lead for the team with 8. You missed the key stat I mentioned earlier. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe Defiantgiant showed earlier the numbers where Hester caught a very high percentage of passes thrown his way while Holt caught a VERY low percentage thrown his way. That is the key stat I am pointing out. Hester was a more reliable target this past year than Holt. Further, while Hester is likely to only further improve, Holt is far more likely to continue the decline which has been taking place for several years now. I couldn't agree with you more. My point should have been taken with a bit cynicism. The fact that he is learning should bother you, as it does me. The fact that these other WR's on the roster are ACTUALLY WR's coming out of college gives me a lot of hope for coming years. As you mentioned, they need experience to the speed of the NFL and things will start to gel. I am not sure I agree his "learning" should bother me. Sure, ideally you want a guy to enter the NFL already knowing his position, and that isn't the case here, but that doesn't mean Hester can regardless become a good WR. He has a greater learning curve than other WRs, but that doesn't mean he can't learn. What would bother me is if he wasn't showing development. Because my belief in ANY of his trade value is for his returning abilities. I don't think the Bears need three players that can blow a game open with their return game (Knox and Manning being the other two). Pair that with his "potential" One, I just don't think his trade value, even as a returner, is that great anymore. He has not looked good as a returner for a couple years now, and I just don't know how much another team would be willing to trade for based on what was seen 2 or 3 years ago, ignoring more recent history. Two, I agree we have other options, but (a) Hester is signed long term, while DM may be here only one more season and ( if Knox is set to become a starter, which is very possible, you have to wonder how great of a role he will have as a returner himself. Now with recent news that a) Boldin could be had for a third rounder then I say do it and package Hester in it and b ) Hester might be a decent slot receiver with occasional return duties, according to Martz, I say give it a shot but not without trying option A first. I commented in that thread, but there is nothing out there saying Boldin can be had for a 3rd. All that was said was Miami might offer a 3rd. Doesn't mean Az is willing to accept a 3rd. And as I said in that thread, a 3rd may be little more than a starting point. You usually don't come to the table with your best offer. If they come to the table w/ a 3rd, that could mean they are willing to go higher. Maybe I am in the minorty, but I simply do not view WR as a need. I like what we have. I think we have more talent at WR than at any point I can remember. Further, I feel we have tons of FAR GREATER needs, and if we are looking to make a deal, it should be for OL, DL, CB or FS, not WR. At those other position, I feel far less secure in our current options than I do at WR.
-
At the moment, I agree. Last offseason, I think it very fair to have believed Hester was our best option. This year, much has changed as DA really emerged late in the season, Knox really hit the field running as a rookie, and Bennett too proved capable of starting. Last year, all three were far greater unknowns then they are today, which is why I think Martz feels more comfortable moving Hester to the slot. If Martz were hired last year, I believe he would have started him on the outside, but today, w/ other options, he is more able to put Hester in the slot.
-
Personally, I don't want to trade for Boldin. I realize what he can be as a WR, when healthy, but as stated, I like who we have. WR is simply an area I do not consider a need. We have tons of needs, and little by way or draft picks or money to deal with those needs. If we were going to trade a player, I would rather it be for a area of greater need, like OL, DE, DT, CB, FS.
-
I was thrilled when I heard Martz said he thought Hester could be a better version of Az Hakim. I'm thrilled because it would appear we have an offensive guy who's not retarded. Martz understands exactly what Hester is and what he is capable of. Thanks christ we've gotten away from coaches saying, "He's our #1 WR . . . ) Not to defend our staff, but I personally don't think it is so much that our staff ever truly felt Hester was a #1 WR, but simply that he was the best we had. That they tried to trade for Boldin in itself likely shows they didn't really think of Hester as a #1. Today, we have other options to start, but I am not sure the same could have been said last offseason. As for Vasher, I keep having to stop myself from asking, "How much cap room would we save?" (What cap?) I am not sure how many years he has left on his deal, but assuming he has multiple years remaining, cutting him today would save on future cap, if an when a cap in reinstated. Further, I think it is also an issue of pure dollars. I think I read he is due around $3m base salary, as well as something like a $500k roster bonus this year. With everything going on w/ the CBA, it is my argument the ownership is not going to want to spend big in FA, and saving money on a player who doesn't seem to have a role on this team anymore makes sense in that it could push some extra cash to FA.
-
Really, in a sense, we have a bunch of WRs who could do very well from the slot. Hester - discussed. Knox - I agree Knox is a tad skinny, but I think we will likely see Rusty put him on an offseason routine to try and add a few pounds to his 6 foot frame. I would like to see him closer to the 200lb range myself. Also, though he was on the smaller side, it should be pointed out that he worked from the slot last year, showed no fear going across the middle, and didn't seem to be injury prone in the process. Bennett - How you utilize the slot can well depend on what sort of receivers you have on the outside. If you have speed on the outside, you can have a slot guy like Bennett, who runs solid routes, can be relied on to get open, and gives the QB a good under option while the outside receivers stretch the field. This could also be important in a system that may not best utilize the TE. Iglesias - Still gotta beat the drum as I think Iglesias is so very much like Engram, but with more quickness and speed. Personally, I best like the idea of having more speed on the outside, and having a more precise route runner in the slot, which would be Bennett or even Iglesias, but I think Martz likes to have more speed in the slot.
-
Its a matter of how you define what the hell a #1 WR is. Defiantgiant has made the case that: (a) Hester is the #1 WR on our team. I would have to agree. He is usually the #1 read. He leads the rest in most all statistical categories. He draws better CBs than any other WR on the team, and draws more double teams than any other WR. So yes, I would say he is in fact our #1 WR. ( Hester is a better Wr than most give him credit. He points out that Hester, if not for the injury, could have had something like 75-80 catches and over 1,000 yards. Those are nice numbers. No, they are not Fantasy Football #1 WR numbers. But they are good numbers in general. So again, it comes down to a definition. No one has argued Hester is a pro bowler or an all pro WR. No one has argued Hester is even an upper tier WR. Defiantgaint has only gone so far as to argue he is OUR #1 WR, and further, argued that he is our #1 not simply be default, but because he is our best WR.
-
One, it says they could offer a 3rd. Two, that is just what they may initially offer. That does not mean Az would accept it, or it is their final offer. You have to believe that if they are willing to enter discussions talking about a 3rd, they are likely willing to go higher.
-
I believe our D would have been better, but w/ the way our DL played, I just question how much. Our D played great when we had Harris playing at the top of his game, Anderson racking up double digit sacks as a rookie situational pass rusher, Wale bring solid edge pressure and Brown simply playing solid all around, not to mention Tank providing additional support in the middle. Urlacher would have helped the D, no question in my mind, but I don't think his being on the field would have been near enough. This defense relies on the front four to generate pressure, and Urlacher can not play DL. Until we fix the DL, or change schemes to better compensate, we are not going to have a decent, much less good, much less great, defense.
-
Is Anyone Else Disappointed That Dent Did Not Get In Again
nfoligno replied to chitownman's topic in Bearstalk
Interesting article talking about HOF snubs, including Dent, but also talking about Andre Reed and Charles Haley, among others. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...fame/index.html -
Because I don't trust our coaches. No way you can tell me Pace was the best tackle and deserved to start (and stay there) at LT. No way you can tell me Omiyale was the most deserving OG. Every report I read said Beekman not only won the job, but that Omiyale looked lost as often as not in camp. Yet there he was, starting at OG game one. Lets consider WR. We signed Booker, and as much of a fan as I was/am of his, he was horrible. He didn't play well in camp, yet was given the nod regardless, and stunk it up during the season. Yet despite how poorly he played, our staff would simply not insert our younger players. I don't trust this staff, especailly now that Martz is running the offense. IMHO, if we signed Holt, he would play. Period. It wouldn't matter if he earned the job or not. And you say, what would it hurt? Okay, lets say for argument sake Holt does play decent. Well enough to earn playing time. Okay, great. Good for him. That might help the team a tiny, tiny bit in the short term, but I would argue it hurts far more in the long run. We have plenty of talent at WR. I just can not understand this mentality of not giving them a chance to develop. What the hell is the point of using all these draft picks on these kids if we are just going to continue to sign over the hill players to play instead. Yea, those over the hill players may be better initially, but how will the youth ever develop and improve if they are not allowed a chance to play?
-
One, I have to question that rumor as it would seem to fly in the face of the sort of TE NE likes. NE likes TEs that can block as well, and even though they have had considerable talent at times, have never really seemed to utilize the TE position that much. I can't see them sending a 2nd for such a player, especially w/ their team seeming to have several new holes which have sprung up. Two, I would not be for the move regardless. W/ Mike Martz as the OC, there is plenty of reason to question how Olsen will be utilized. However, I shudder to think of the possibility of Martz being here for one year, as most expect, only for us to then hire an OC that does require a talented TE. I would be absolutely sick if we traded Olsen now, due in part to Martz, and then hired someone like Chud a year from now, who could potentially have done worders for Olsen. I don't like the move because it is short sighted, IMHO. Also, while I like our WRs, they are still young and unproven. I am not saying Olsen is proven, but he is a veteran in comparison to some. Further, when you get right down to it, he is probably still today our most gifted receiver on the roster. There is a reason this past year defenses not only game planned, but used their top CBs on Olsen. Does everyone realize how unusual this is? Do you all realize how few TEs force defenses to roll their #1 CB over to them. Yes, you see it, but only the elite TEs usually require such a matchup. That Olsen drew such coverage speaks loudly as to his ability, reputation within the defensive coaching community, and yes, also speaks to the lack of respect for our WRs. Regardless, I don't see the value in giving up on Olsen right now. And frankly, I don't trust our current staff to make any moves that considers the future of this franchise. I really hope ownership puts the brakes on any deals that would impact the future of the team. A coach should always be looking at this season. The GM should be looking beyond, but as our GM may well be on a one year lease also, we need to have some check and balance on him to prevent his hurting the franchise for years to come.
-
Is Anyone Else Disappointed That Dent Did Not Get In Again
nfoligno replied to chitownman's topic in Bearstalk
Just for the record, many here in Dallas have the same gripe about former members of the Dallas Great teams not yet in the all, both from the 70s and 90s. I bet if you checked around, you would find many teams fans have similar opinions, that the HOF is biased against them. Understand, I think it BS he is not in the hall, and believe he absolutely should be in. I simply am not sure it is an issue of bias. I think it "may" be an issue of the HOF trying to to too quickly enshrine too many from one team. Not a team as a whole, but like the '85 bears or Steel Curtain Steelers, or Cowboys who dominated in the 90s. For example, the Steelers dominated in the 70s. I believe 7 or 8 players eventually made it into the HOF, but several among that group needed quite some time before they made it. For quite a while, they had maybe 5 who were immediately inducted into the HOF, while others waited a long time before their names were added. As great as the Cowboys were in the '90s, I believe only Aikman, Emmit and Irvin are in the HOF. I realize some are still playing, but trust me, many Cowgirl fans seem to get upset every week by the lack of Cowgirls being included. Similar, like the Steelers, Dallas was another team that dominated during the 70s, and yet there just are not that many names in the HOF. So I think it is a combo of two things. One, the HOF may try to avoid too quickly putting too many players from one team (specific to a time period) into the HOF and two, the HOF knows we have the most players in the HOF, and if it is close in their minds, may give the edge to a team w/ fewer members in the HOF. Look, I agree Dent should abso-freaking-lutely be in the HOF. Frankly, I believe there were several others on that teams who are HOF'ers. I just don't think it is some Chicago-hate-bias. Dent will get in. IMHO, so will a couple others when all is said and done. -
So I guess Antonio Gates would never have found a role in your offense? Isn't Tony Gonzalez a below average blocker too? Yes, I agree we need to continue to work on his blocking. At the same time, I don't think you can simply dismiss his receiving potential just because he can't block.
-
In football years, that was a long time ago. Holt may have done great under Martz, but was also more in his prime. Now, due to age and injuries, he has lost a step (or 10) and is simply no longer the WR he once was. Yes, he was FAR greater than Booker ever was, but that doesn't change the fact that we are regardless talking in past tense. Today, he is simply a mediocre WR who struggles to get separation. Today, I think we are better options on the roster, and would much rather we continue to develop of give those young WRs the reps rather than put them on the bench in favor of Holt. I realize the coaches are going to be thinking more about 2010, but we need to be thinking more long term than that. We have some really talented, young WRs. We need to be developing them. That is a new concept in Chicago, but one we really need to wrap our minds around if we want Cutler to be the franchise QB we hoped when we traded for him. Look at Cutler's last year in Denver. What would have happened if the team, rather than give Royal the opportunity, signed some older veteran. Cutler may have been able to work w/ that veteran, but wasn't Denver better off getting Royal the reps.