nfoligno

I was responding to the post where Terra was slammed for commenting on the WR’s, as they were the only receiver’s mentioned on the original post. NFO knows that, as he well adept at embellishing commentary to support his argument. (Classic debating skills which I respect) Also, bringing Forte and the TE’s into the argument is overstating our obvious strengths. Been a while since my "debating skills" were referenced. I did in fact debate for many years, and at time laugh when I realize I "discuss" on this board as if I were in a damn debate, as opposed to shooting the shit w/ a bunch of fellow drunks Back to the point. Some want to discuss our WRs, and do so in a vacuum. I get it. Our WRs are neither proven studs, or proven for that matter. My the point I would make is, different teams are going to look at their WRs differently. Take Az as an example. They have two stud WRs, and frankly, their 3rd WR is pretty damn good. They have a pass happy offense which focuses around the WR. On the other hand, they do not really utilize their TE or RB in the passing game. Thus, if they were to loose Fitz or Boldin, they would likely try to immediatly replace that player. Simply having one stud WR is not enough for their system. But our scheme is simply very different. We utilize our TEs and RBs in the passing game as much as the WRs. Thus the need to the depth of proven commodities is not as necessary as it is for a team like Az. That is why I do not think we can talk about the lack of experience at WR w/o factoring the passing game potential of our TEs and RBs. 178 of our teams catches went to TEs and RBs. W/o checking, I would bet that ranks close to the top. Further, over half of our TDs passes went to TEs and RBs. So, my point is, when the TE and RB positions are such a factor in our offense as they are, you can't look at the WR position w/o factoring them. If we were a team like Az, that would be different, but we are not. I really don’t argue anything from a FF perspective, unless we are talking about FF. I find it very reasonable to be skeptical of a group of WR’s that have proven nothing in the league. I’ve learned enough from our coaching staffs stubbornness to adapt to feel the WR’s will develop on the kool-aid level. I think the point of the FF comment was simply that the idea of a "#1 WR" seems to have been skewed over the years due to FF. When someone mentions #1 WR, the immediate thought of most would point to FF #1 WRs. OK, I’ll bite. It’s 2009 and 8 seasons since we’ve had a surprise receiver. Otherwise the only thing we can base anything on is development and experience. Experience is slim and development must be accelerated. They have done nothing as a unit, so their merits really don’t exist yet. So we have faith. I would argue it is a bit more than just faith. I would argue it is a level of expectation based on surrounding factors. I think it fair to believe Hester will continue his development. Heck, I believe you below say Orton missed Hester on like 12 deep passes, and he may have caught as many as 5 or 6 of those, which likely would have been for about 200 more yards. Beyond Hester, which I think is the focus of the argument, I think is has to be factored the upgrades to the OL and QB. If not for those, I would be with you screaming about our WR corp, but due to those upgrades, I think there is more support behind the faith, than simply having kool-aid blind faith. There are two ways to look at a #1 reciever. 1st is from the team’s perspective. Your best is your #1. (that being Devin) 2nd is from the NFL perspective. That is the receiver that the QB counts on to make plays on a consistent basis and has high production. (what Devin aspires to be) I personally think there are many ways to look at a #1 WR. In SD, for example, they have Jackson as their #1 WR. He is a big play threat, and put up good yardage stats, but I have a hard time considering anyone who only had 50 something catches a #1 WR. Conversely, Mason had 80 catches for Baltimore, but is he really a #1 anymore? Making a play for an upgrade was not my intent. I’m not sure we could maximize a Burress this year. If I knew we would have him all season, I would be fine with a one year contract for him. Otherwise, like I stated on numerous occasions, we will lean on our youngsters to develop quickly and expect a few growing pains. In the end, we agree we are likely to go w/ what we have. I think the difference is, you don't see as much reason for elevated expectations as I do. I am among those who believes the OL and QB make the WR more so than the other way around. We are not used to having a QB like Cutler, so it is hard for most Bear fans to think this way, but I simply believe Cutler brings a factor to our WR expectations that can't be ignored.

Give me 2 paid slots please. One for me and one for a friend, bears fan, who was in a Bearstalk league w/ us last year too. If there are not 2 open slots, then we will both take the freebies, but would rather get in on the paid action. I would really enjoy taking some of bradjockstraps money :-)

One thing that sort of struck me as odd was a comment from Rivera. "Refined the details, which in talking to some of the players in Chicago, that's what they are doing now. He's going back to step one with them." Does it strike anyone else as odd that Ron Rivera, a SD coach, is speaking w/ our players? Isn't that actually against league rules? I know players often speak w/ each other after switching teams, but I didn't think coaches spoke w/ players from former teams.

I agree that Cutler will be a significant improvement over previous years, and I guess this is splitting hairs, but I just don't see him quite making it to 4,000. I think 3,800-3,900 yards is about the best I'd expect. With a year in the offense under his belt and some better-developed receivers, I think he should break 4k yards in 2010. Not significant argument here. If you are saying 3,800-3,900 yards, while I am saying 4,000, I don't think the difference is worth arguing over. Rivers did make the jump from 22 TDs to 34, but I don't know of any reason why we'd expect Cutler to do the same without a comparable surrounding cast. My main point was that Rivers' primary option in the red zone, thanks to his receivers, was to throw the ball. I believe the Bears' primary option will still be to run it in with Forte, which will limit Cutler's passing TDs. I'm going to have to quote you here, because I think we're in agreement. You said, "I believe (a) Cutler will have solid TD numbers, and ( while his total TDs may be fewer than Rivers, that may also be offset by more ground game scores, thus keeping the overall picture w/ SD intact." I agree with this entirely. I think the Bears' offense as a WHOLE should score as much as San Diego's did last year. I just don't think Cutler will account for as many of our TDs as Rivers did of San Diego's. I see the Bears' offense scoring far less than 34 times through the air, but making it up on the ground. Gotta take a step back. I was not saying that each and every individual would specifically matchup w/ SD, but that we could have a similar offense, and "overall" be comparable. While I agree Cutler may fall short by a few (yards/scores) of Rivers last year, at the same time, I think Forte could makeup the difference over what SD saw on the ground. So while that stats may not matchup perfect, I think they will end up pretty close. Regarding Hester, I fully understand your logic and reasoning. By two main points still exist though. One. I understand your math in terms of % of passes thrown to Hester caught last year. My point is, I believe there is legit reason to expect a greater number of passes thrown his way this year. (a) Hester has another year of development, which likely means better development of route running, thus getting open more ( while Orton was a look under first QB, Cutler is more like Rex is first looking to throw deep and © with an improved OL, it leads to more time for the QB to wait for that downfield route runner to get open. All this sets up for a solid situation for Hester to see more opportunities. So the first part of this argument is that Hester is set up to see more balls thrown his way w/ a QB like Cutler, and an improved OL, than he did last year w/ Orton and a very weak OL. Two. While I do not expect Hester to jump to 20 ypc or whatever VJ had, at the same time, I think (for the above reasons) he is likely to see an increase in YPC average. Simply put, Hester is a downfield threat who didn't have a downfiled passer last year, but does this year in Cutler. I think it on the conservative side to predict a 2 ypc increase. So when you combine the two points, I do believe it sets up for Hester to see a similar increase is production as VJ did. No, I am not saying it will be exact, and further, I am not saying he will end up w/ his numbers the exact same way VJ did. In fact, honestly, if Hester ended up w/ only 55 catches (even if the YPC were ridiculously high) I would be disappointed. So while Hester may not have the huge YPC, I think he will regardless be of a similar mold. Exact? No. But similar enough for the big picture comparison. Again, I think you need to take a step back and look at the big picture piece of the argument. You want to debate whether the individual trees are identical, while I am saying the forest overall is very similar. SD had a solid offense. They did not have one, much less multiple elite WRs. They did not have an elite run game (at least not last year). What they had was: A very good QB - check - Cutler may not be identical to Rivers, but is a very solid QB, capable of similar play. A good, but far from great WR - check - Hester is similar to VJ. Maybe their stats do not end up identical, but each serves a similar purpose for their offense. Both are downfield threats who are more big play than consistent. A very good TE - check - Gates is elite, but he was not last year. He was not elite last year. Olsen is already on the border of what Gates did last year, and I think there is plenty reason to believe he equals, if not surpasses, what Gates did last year. A solid or better ground game - check - Forte actually did better than LT last year, and did so in similar fashion, being a multiple threat runner/receiver. We can debate how good KJ is, but when you look at SD's #2 RB, I think it fair enough to expect similar from KJ. So, while many teams around the league play at a high level w/ more or even multiple top tier WRs as their top threats, SD was an effective passing team utilizing a WR, TE and RB. I see similar for us.

Continuity. Though I feel Cutler is an elite talent, he is the 1st year of a system. Add to that, he is with all new players. The WR's are also looking at a potential 66% turnover in positions 1-3. RB and TE are set. But, OL is looking at a 60% change from last year. I am not so worried about the OL gelling because of the talent infusion it underwent. We could have had all the continuity in the world last year and our OL would have been below average. Pace alone significantly makes our OL better than last year. I do agree continuity is a key area. I have always said as much myself. At the same time, I think how significant the upgrade is also compensates for the continuity factor. You seem to argue the same in terms of the OL. More than any other area on a football team, I believe chemisty plays a huge part on the OL, and yet you even say that is compensated by the level of upgrade seen. I would argue similar w/ Cutler vs Orton. Cutler VS Rivers: You have the mobile cannon in Cutler vs the lightning realease of Rivers. Both are supremely talented in their own right, but Rivers has more tenure with his system and team mates. 2009 goes to Rivers. No argument that Rivers has more tenure w/ his team. Further, I would agree our O is likely to finish the year stronger than it starts. At the same time, I still think there is considerable comparison here. I would argue that the level of upgrade from Orton to Cutler washes most of, if not all, tenure argument here. Further, I think the two QBs are fairly comparable. Maybe Rivers has a quicker release. I honestly do not know. But that would seem to be offset, as Cutler is considered among the elite in terms of escaping pressure and throwing on the run. Further, like Rivers, Cutler is a solid completion % QB. I get the chemisty argument, but at the same time (like w/ the OL) feel it is offset by the level of upgrade. Forte VS LT: We've seen their individual talents; one is a sure fire Hall of Famer nd the other an up and coming stud. Forte is on the up and LT the down. 2009 goes to Forte. I am really not considering SD in 2009, but comparing the SD we saw in 2008 w/ our potential for 2009. The simple of it is, Forte was, and should be, better than the 2008 version of LT. Sproles VS Jones: Sproles kills KJ. 2009 goes to Sproles Again, you are talking about SD in 2009, but I am not. Last year, Sproles produced 330 yards. I think KJ will actually do better than that. Bears WR's VS Chargers WR's: Call Hester and Jackson a wash. Although Chambers had a down year last year, he is better than any #2 we have. (BTW - I think he had some injuries last year) Bears are on the upside, but we have nothing proven beyond Hester. 2009 goes to San Diego Again, I am talking about what SD did last year, and their WRs (outside VJ) simply did not do much. Outside of VJ, the only two WRs that gave any level of production was Floyd (27 catches) and Chambers (33). Neither of those two WRs have a great deal of chemistry w/ Rivers, and neither produced much. While our WRs are very young, I am not sure we should expect less production from ours. Bears TE's VS Chargers TE's: We have Olsen, which is widely considered the most up and coming TE in the game this year VS. Gates which is regarded as the best TE in football. Here's the rub, Gates has been hampered with foot injuries the last two seasons. Can he return to form? As of now I call Olsen V Gates a wash. Clark swings it for me. 2009 goes to Bears. Here is the key for me. Last year When you look at their passing production, you see 1 WR (59-1,100), 1 TE (60-704) 1 RB (52-426) and then a smaller level of production from a group of others, only one of which was over 30, and that was w/ 33. Well, I would argue in Hester, Olsen and Forte, we can match catch-yards production, and after that, we too have a group of players who the ball can be spread around to. OL goes to Chargers. (Tired of typing and I don't think anyone would argue the point) Their OL was solid last year, I also think our OL this year could be as good. Chemistry is a factor, agreed, but the level of upgrade must also be factored. The Bears have an opportunity to have SD's stats this year, but I think it's unrealistic to expect us to catch or surpass them this year based on experience, continuity and availible talent. Our arrow is pointing more upward than theirs is though. I expect our O will be around 12th in the NFL this year, which is not bad at all. At the end of the day, I still believe the offenses could be similar. You look at River's 4,000 yard production, and that is great. But then you look at how he got those yards, and that is where I see a huge similarity. SD didn't utilize a group of WRs, much less did they have one elite WR w/ huge numbers. SD was an offense (passing) based around one standout TE, one standout RB, one good WR and a host of others who contributed at much smaller levels. I believe we could be very similar.

Just for the record, I had type a brilliant response to this some days back, but when I tried to add the reply, the server I guess was down, and I lost everything. This is my first time back since. I am going to reply again, but just wanted to let you know that my lost reply explained perfectly why you are wrong The major categories where I don't see the Bears being equal to San Diego are the following: QB - Passing Yards: In a vacuum, Cutler certainly has the ability to beat Rivers' 4,000 yard mark - he broke 4,500 yards with the Broncos last season. But the Broncos were running a wide-open passing offense, and San Diego's offense is closer to Denver's than it is to Chicago's. It remains to be seen whether Turner will stick to a conservative, run-based attack or not. If he does, I don't see Cutler quite making it to 4,000 yards passing. One. I don't think Turner is nearly as conservative as many make him out to be. I think a combo of (a) Lovie hammering home the 'get of the bus running' comment and ( our passing game not being as downfield agressive last year give the impression Turner is conservative. I just disagree. Last year, we ran the ball 434 times, compared to 528 passes. Should also factor 24 of those runs were Orton, nearly all of which started w/ an intended pass play. Point is, we were far more of a passing team than Lovie wants you to believe. Two. Last year, we had a joke of an OL, and Turner compensated for that w/ 3 step drops, thus our offense was not wide open, but I would argue that was due to personnel, rather than scheme. Hell, look at our SB season w/ Rex under center. While we ran more, I would argue Rex was looking downfield far more. That year, our 2 QBs combined for 3,400 yards, and that was with a very pedestrian 55% completion percentage. Assuming Cutler brings a higher completion percentage, I see no reason not to believe he can't add another 600 yards to what Rex and Griese did a few years ago. QB - Touchdowns: Sorry, but Cutler's not going to throw for 34 scores. The Bears' red-zone receiving package is not going to look ANYTHING like the Chargers'. San Diego gets down near the goal line and they get to put Antonio Gates, probably the second-best receiving TE in the NFL, on the field with Vincent Jackson (6'5" 240 lbs) and Malcom Floyd (6'5" 226 lbs.) All three guys are massive jump-ball threats. They throw the ball very successfully in the red zone as a result. The Bears, Cutler or no, are still going to punch it in on the ground when they get close to the end zone. We've got Greg Olsen and very little else in the way of red-zone targets. One. Prior to this last season, Rivers had 22 and 21 TD seasons. I think few expected him to throw 34. Two. While I agree they have more red zone targets, and further agree we may be more likely to punch more in on the ground, at the same time, I believe (a) Cutler will have solid TD numbers, and ( while his total TDs may be fewer than Rivers, that may also be offset by more ground game scores, thus keeping the overall picture w/ SD intact. Three. While they have more weapons w/ size for the red zone, (a) we have some targets w/ size also, w/ Olsen (6'5) and Clark (6'3), ( further, they are more ways to score than simply with height in the red zone. I think we may have more potential for more long play scores w/ Cutler to Olsen and/or Hester. Further, if Olsen can score 18 TDs w/ last years receivers, I see no reason Cutler should add a considerable number to that total. WR1 - Receiving yards: Jackson took a GIANT leap forward between 2007 and 2008. Do I think it's possible that Hester could do the same? Yes, definitely. Do I think we should be expecting Hester to take that kind of a jump? Nope. Between those two years, Jackson's catch rate went from 51.3% to 58.4% and his yards-per-catch went from 15.1 to 18.6. Proportionally, that's a very large increase in both catching ability and per-catch production. Compared to the rest of the league, Jackson started with a low catch rate and a pretty high YPC, higher than most NFL receivers have. In 2008, he improved that to an average catch rate and a genuinely elite YPC. Of all the receivers in the league with at least 20 catches last year, only 3 guys had a higher YPC than Vincent Jackson. Meanwhile, Hester finished 2008 with a 55.4% catch rate and a YPC of 13: he actually caught a lot more of the passes thrown his way than Jackson did back in 2007, but he did significantly less with those receptions. Basically, Hester's starting with a slightly below-average catch rate and a fairly average YPC. So to make a jump proportionally equal to Jackson's, 2009-Hester would have to catch over 63% of passes thrown to him and would need to improve his YPC to over 16. That would make him a very reliable target by NFL standards, as well as a pretty good big-play threat. If he made that big of an improvement, he'd be able to hit 1100 yards receiving in about 110 targets, not that many more than the 101 that Jackson got in 2008. His stat line would look something like: 69 receptions for 1,110 yards and 6 TDs. The key problem I have w/ your math is, you assume everything remains the same for Hester. I would argue there is a realistic expectation that (a) Hester see's more passes his way and ( Hester gets more legit opportunities downfield. You say Hester would need to catch 65% of the passes thrown his way, but that is assuming the same number of passes are thrown to him. I would argue there is the expectation more passes are thrown his way, and thus he would not need to catch 63% to equal VJ's jump in production. Further, I would argue that w/ an improved OL and a QB that can not only throw the ball downfield, but do so more on target than Orton, his likelihood of YPC rises also increases. The reality is, w/ our personnel last year, we were forced to play a short passing game. Our OL simply could not hold their blocks long enough, and even when they could, we didn't have a QB very good going downfield. We have significantly upgraded in both areas, and I think it very reasonable to believe we will see more shots deep for Hester. Further, I believe that (a) Cutler will improve our offense in terms of 3rd down conversion and total 1st downs (two areas we were among the worst in the league) and thus we will have more snaps, thus more passes and ( Cutler is a more accurate passer, and thus w/ a greater completion %, you see similar rises in the WRs production. I believe 70 catches is a reasonable expectation for Hester. Further, due to the above arguments, I think 15 ypc is reasonable. That would be 1,050 yards, which is just shy of VJ's total production.

Once again, I am talking about the WR's on team and not the TE's, RB's, MLB's, kickers or anything else. It's nice to have players at other positions, and I'm not saying the Bears are doomed to failure. KC had a good offense with Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson and Gonzalez during the Trent Green years even without a big named WR, The Chargers have did it and so on, but this year the Bears are the most unprepared I've ever seen a team at WR. I want to begin where you ended, as I believe it is an important point. I know you want to look at only the WR position, but I do not believe it is right to do so. If Benson was our RB, or if our top TE was a blocking TE, then our lack of experience at WR would be much more pronounced, but as we have a RB who was a lead leader in receptions, and a pair of very solid or better pass catching TEs, I think the emphasis on the WR position is simply less. I don't think you can look at one w/o the other. Especially w/ Olsen, who probably lined up as a WR as often as a TE. I just do not think you can ignore the experience factor at TE. Hester did make strides last year compared to the year before last. I think you are giving him a little bit too much credit tho IMO. How am I giving Hester too much credit? I have never been among those saying he was the next Steve Smith, or placing super high expectations for him. Even w/ Cutler, I have kept the expectations/predictions moderate. Understand. Heading into last offseason, I really didn't expect jack from Hester. I just didn't think he had the menal part of the game enough to learn the offense, routes, etc. But he really developed far more than I expected. Seriously though, I don't see how anyone can take away from what Hester did last year. In 2007, he was a gimick WR more than anything, getting on the field for a play here and there. He didn't know the plays, and that was most evident when Moose was tossing him around and pushing him into position. That year, he had 20 catches for about 300 yards. This past season was really his first as a full time WR. Maybe his stats at the end of the year were not eye-popping, but I look at it more in terms of development. He added He more then doubled both catches and yards, and I think that is impressive. I really just try to look at players from a developmental standpoint, and IMHO, he really took positive strides in that regard last year. I don't think I am giving him too much credit. I am just giving credit where it is do, and have also had to admit I was wrong in doing so. I think more credit would be thrown Hester's way, but too many had ridiculous expectations heading into last year, w/ so many talking about him being the next Steve Smith. They are good tight ends, but I didn't over look it, I'm talking about the WR's. How many TE's actually put up WR numbers tho? TEs I would argue are similar to WRs in terms of numbers and how defenses are forced to play them. Gates, Gonzalez, Cooley, Witten. Add to that a few more in Clark, Daniels and Shockey who are also primary targets in the passing game. I think Olsen can absolutely put himself into that upper tier category. If our TE gets 70+ catches for 800+ yards, I would argue that is very much WR production. I think there are a few #2 Wrs who have slanted the perception of what a #2 Wr should be capable of putting up, but the reality is a smaller number of teams have multiple 1,000 yard receivers, and often you will see a #2 receiver putting up something more like 800 to 900 yards. I think Olsen can be such a weapon. Pennington isn't exactly chopped liver tho. He is the kind of QB that can excel at spreading the ball around like that. No doubt Cutler definitely can throw the ball alot farther, but Pennington is a very efficient QB. I'd rather have Cutler of course. Never said Pennington was chopped liver, but the point is, we have a QB capable of elevating the play of his receivers, much like Pennington and others have done. Miami's WR's had more experience, and you can't really judge talent if you've never seen it on the field. The Bears have 2 WR's that have ever caught the ball in an NFL game. While Miami's WR's were young and may not be big names or extremely talented, only one was a rookie and most had atleast minimal experience in the league. That year or 2 experience tends to have a big impact on a WR's ability to succeed in the NFL, even tho there are some exceptions. Sorry, not buying. Ted Ginn Jr had one season of experience, w/ minimal production. I would argue Hester has more experience (and production) entering this season than Ginn did entering last. Camarillo had one prior season, w/ a whopping 8 catches as he barely saw the field. In fact, I do not believe he even was active until the final 3 games of that season. Sorry, but there is simply not a great enough experience difference between he and Bennett. Bess, their 3rd highest receiver, was a rookie. We have a couple of those. Fasano is next on their chart, followed by Martin. We have two TEs easily equal to their two in terms of experience. Cobbs had a year of experience (w/ 15 catches) prior to last season, but as he only contributed 19 catches, i am not sure you can really factor him so greatly. Sorry, but I just do not see the experience difference you mention. As w/ Bennett, just because a player was in the league for a year prior does not mean he was experienced. In fact, I would argue we have as much, and maybe more, experience than Miami. Once again, outside of Jackson, their WR's had experience. Baskett 2 years, Curtis 5 years, Avant 2 years, and so on. Is it alot of experience? no, it's not. WR's usally need time to develop in the NFL, Jackson himself should be better this year. You can pick one or 2 rookies that made a significant contribution and expect it out of the Bears, but that is usually the exception and not the rule. One, Baskett, Curtis and Avant all had "some" prior experience, but you are talking about 3 WRs that contributed only about 30 catches each. Sorry, but that isn't anything to write hope about. Their main receiving weapons were a rookie and their RB, each of which we can match. Their WRs who had experience were actually the ones that failed. Two, I have talked about this before, but I do not buy anymore the argument that WRs need 3 years to develop in the NFL. I think that once was the case, but for some years now, do not believe it is true. More and more rookie WRs make an impact in their rookie year, not to mention their 2nd season. I am not talking about the extremes like Jackson or Boldin, but simply capable of making solid contributions, which is all I am talking about. Look, if Orton were the QB, I would be a bit more concerned, but w/ a QB like Cutler, I just think we are in a better position to expect more from our receivers. Further, as I said to start, I just do not think you can take out of the equation the experience of our two TEs and RB in the passing game. Those 3 accounted for nearly 160 catches last year. How can that not be factored?

Well, that is more about their defense as their offense ranked 11th in the league, and scored 27 ppg. They actually ranked 7th in passing. Their 25th defensive ranking sort of killed the team though.

Looked at this comparison in another thead, and just love the comparison. Looking at our roster compared to SDs (offense) I think this is a team we could use as a measuring stick. Rivers - 4,000 yards and 34 TDs. I see no reason to believe Cutler isn't just as good as Rivers, and has shown the ability to put up similar numbers. Gates - Their top receiver is not a WR, but a TE. I am not saying Olsen will be equal to Gates overall, but Gates numbers last year (60-700-8) are not on a level I think out of Olsen's reach. 5 more catches. 125 more yards and 3 more TDs. I think that is reasonable. Vincent Jackson - Easily their #1 WR, putting up 59-1,100-7. Entering the season, Jackson's best numbers were 41-620-3. Hmmm. Hester had 51-665-3. Seems to me Hester is primed for a similar jump as VJ saw. LT - It may sound out there to compare Forte w/ LT, but LT last year was not the LT so many have come to expect. I'll get to his rushing in a moment, but receiving, he actually had fewer stats than Forte. Malcom Floyd/ Chris Chambers - Each of these receivers had around 30 catches for 460 yards. Sorry, that is not super impressive, and something I think plenty possible for Bennett/Iglesias. If you don't like factoring both Bennett and Iglesias here, throw in D.Clark, as SD doesn't have a #2 TE equal to us. Sproles - 29-340. That is something I think KJ can easily match. After this group, you have 5 guys low on the depth chart at either RB, FB, TE or WR, each of which had 15 or fewer catches . I'll see that group and match Knox, Davis, AP, Wolfe, and whoever our FB is. They also got 1,100 yards rushing from LT and 330 from Sproles. I think Forte and TJ can match that rushing total. SD had a very solid offense last year, but when I look at their roster, I fail to see why we should not expect similar. We have a QB to match theirs. We have a RB (duo) to match their RB (duo). We have a TE to match theirs. We have a WR to match their top WR. We have a group of WRs to match their group of WRs (after the #1). I would further add that we have an OL this year that can matchup to theirs. Sure, I realize some players like Gates and LT were below the norm, but the point is still that we have players entering this season who very well could match the numbers their guys had last year.

What is your timeframe for Cutler to make the WR's we have average to above average? IMO - it's not going to be right out of the gate. I think this year, one of the rookies (Bennett counted in this category) will look good. Maybe that means 50-600, but when I count that w/ what else I think is very realistic, that is more than good enough. - I think Hester is primed for a very nice season. Hester jumped from 20-300 to 51-650. That is a nice bounce, and even better when you factor how weak our offense overall was. I think 70-900 is VERY realistic. I think he could very well get more, but that would be a 20 catch and 250 yard bounce, which is not huge, but would make him a very productive piece of the offense. - Olsen is another I think absolutely must be factored into the equation. He had 39-390 as a rookie, and then 54-574 last year. Key, IMHO, is that w/ Orton and our offense, we were not able to utilize Olsen in the ways he was drafted for. I think Olsen will become a more central piece of the offense, and used downfield more. I think we could see similar bumps for Olsen as we will Hester. Olsen too could have 70-900, which like Hester, is a fairly modest and realistic bump, but would at the end of the day, provide very solid numbers. - Forte showed, in his rookie season, how solid of a receiver he is. I see no reason that shouldn't continue. In fact, I think he could have more yards on fewer catches. Lets say 55 catches for 500 yards, which is very similar to what he had last year. Right there, in just those three, you have 190 catches for 2,300 yards. I think those three give us a solid base, making life for other potential receivers much easier. Frankly, am not sure I expect any one of our inexperienced receivers to break out like Royal, Deshaun Jackson or the like. What I think we may see is something more similar to Miami last year, w/ multiple inexperienced receivers contributing. I can see Bennett and Iglesias both have 40+ catches. I think Knox will have a lower catch total, but could provide bigger yardage numbers due to solid YPC average. Now throw in D.Clark, who is not going to simply be written out of the offense. Point is, I think Hester and Olsen will each see solid jumps THIS YEAR. As for the young WRs, I think we will see numerous provide nice production, w/o leveling some huge expectation for breakout seasons from any one guy. So when you ask when Cutler will make our weapons avg to above avg, I would say. This year Olsen goes to well above average, while hester takes on more of a solid/average tier. I think other young receivers put up some nice production, but I would be looking at 2010 for any of them to step up to the more legit #2 production range. Starting caliber as a #1 receiver?? I don't think there are a handfull of teams that would consider him a #1 at this point in time. Can he be, YES. But that is up in the air. I would argue that plenty often a team finishes the year w/ a #1 that wasn't a #1 going in. How many thought Lance Moore would be NO's #1? Deshaun Jackson? Hester enters the season as a default #1 for us, as there is no other WR we could even call a #1, but that doesn't mean much to me. When you have a stud QB, he can develop a WR into a #1. Again, what's the timeframe, you are eluding to? Day one? Mid-season? Next year? See original answer. I think Hester and Olsen develop quickly under Cutler. I think we basically see a group of young Wrs after that which contribute, but give them each another year to develop into what most would call legit starting caliber. Honestly, there is just so much talk about the WR position, I just think our TE setup gets overlooked. I think Olsen has a very good shot to develop into an upper tier TE, and most teams w/ an upper tier TE do not have a stable of stud WRs. SD may be a good offense to compare against. While I am not saying Olsen will be as dominating as Gates, I do think the set up could be similar. Gates - Olsen V.Jackson - Hester Tomlinson - Forte Rivers had 4,000 yards and 34 TDs. Look at their roster and let me know why that isn't a realistic expectation for us.

Heading into the season, are we in any worse of a situation than Phily was last year? Last year, McNabb had just under 4,000 yards, which I would consider pretty damn solid. Who did he have to throw to? His top WR was Jackson, a rookie. What other WRs did he have that we would point to as being so much better than ours? They have Westbrook, but Forte had more catches and yards than West last year. Further, I would argue we have two TEs better than any of theirs. If you put an average QB in that offense, I would argue they would have had FAR fewer than 4,000 yards, and further, Jackson would not have broken out the way you did. But you add an upper tier QB, and suddenly they have a productive offense. IMHO, we have more weapons than Phily, and now that we have a stud QB, lets see what he can do with those weapons.

Disagree Hester couldn't catch last year. He had a couple drops, but I do not recall him having so many that you would claim he couldn't catch. In fact, I remember more passes that were off the mark when he was open than I do actual drops. IMHO, Hester took big strides last year, which was essentially his first as a full time WR. As for Davis, while I would not want him as a starter, he previously showed to be a solid slot WR. I do not know what happened last year, but so long as he is not in the starting lineup, I see no reason he can't be decent again. While there is no question we lack experience at WR, I still think there is reason to be optimistic. One thing I truly believe simply gets too over-looked. We have two very solid TEs, each of which have plenty of experience, to go along w/ our WRs. Especially as often as we used two TE sets, or split Olsen out wide, I think that very much is a factor. Look at Miami last year, who didn't even have a QB as good as ours. No one receiver had big numbers, but they spread the ball around a lot. I would argue their WRs were no more talent or experienced than ours. How about Phily? They had minimal experience at the WR position, and even less when you factor injuries. Their top WR was a rookie (Jackson). In fact, I think it could be argued we enter this year in a better situation, as I am not sure any of their receivers heading into the season were as good as Hester. Are we counting on a player w/o experience stepping up? Yes. At the same time, I think Hester, Olsen, Clark and Forte offer a solid base, and as good as other teams that have done well.

Lets start w/ what I consider a #1 WR. Well, I think there are 3 categories. Stud #1. Statistical #1. Default #1. A default #1 WR is one who is the declared #1 for little more reason than he is the best of a bunch of average WRs. A Stud #1 is the sort of WR who dominates regardless of circumstances. He doesn't need a pro bowl QB, a great #2 WR opposite him, and can beat the very good CBs as well. Then there is the middle #1 WR category. This can put up those high end numbers, but can not do it on his own. Do you know what I mean? Some WRs are simply so good, they would dominate w/ a QB like Orton. For this category though, they would not be able to dominate w/ a lesser QB, but give them the QB/2nd WR or whatever, and they have the ability to put up pro bowl numbers. That is what I think Hester can be. I do not think he is a stud #1, but w/ the QB and OL upgrades, I do think he could put up damn good numbers. W/ Cutler throwing the ball, I think Hester could have 85-1,300 and double digit scores. Will he? I don't know. IMHO, it may depend as much or more on our system. Do we continue to "get off the bus running". Do we make the TE a continued focus/emphasis? Do we allow Cutler to be as aggressive as he wants? Now to the 2nd part of this. Lets say Hester has a solid, improved season, but one that is still lacking for a #1 WR. What do we do then? (a) I think Olsen may be a factor. You talk about Bennett, but what if Olsen takes a step and becomes an upper tier TE? If he puts up big numbers, does that compensate for Bennett not developing more? ( Regardless, I still question whether we would go after an upper tier WR. I full well understand your thinking, but at the same time, I still question whether we would go after an elite WR. After really focusing on offense for a couple seasons, both in draft and FA, I think the odds of our spending big again on offense are simply not great. I think more likely, we would (a) look to an average veteran WR and ( focus more on defense. Honestly though, I think TE could be the little discussed factor. You talk about Vincent Jackson, but how about his team. If you have one stud TE, one damn good WR and a stud RB (all of which we may well have in Olsen/Hester/Forte), I am just not sure we go after the big name WR.

I think we are talking about two different things here. Is Bennett being looked at to make huge strides this year? Absolutely. Maybe more than any other, Bennett is a player the staff is counting on. But that isn't what I am talking about. If we are talking about whether or not we are going to make a play for the elite FA WRs next year (marshall, Edwards, TO, etc) then I think it is more about Hester. If Hester develops into a #1 WR, then I do not see us going into next offseason planning to spend a ton on another #1 WR. That doesn't mean we would ignore any and all FA WR, but in talking about looking at the upper tier of FA WRs, I do not think Bennett is the deciding factor. Bennett could look very good this year, but if Hester for some reason didn't progress and didn't look capable of becoming a #1, we may still go after a stud FA WR, despite Bennett looking solid. On the other hand, Bennett could bomb, yet if Hester looks like a stud, I do not think we would go after a Boldin, Edwards or the like. If the discussion is about future stud FA WRs, then I argue it is based on the production/develop of Hester, not Bennett.

I don't think it is under-rated. I think most in the league understand the connect, but as bears fans, it is simply something we are not used to.

While Bennett is a factor, I think the likes of Hester and/or Knox would be bigger factors. While you always "hope" for the high end production, I think the more reasonable/realistic expectations of Bennett, and Iglesias for that matter, would be solid possession/possession plus #2 WRs. You might hope for a Boldin or Keyshaun Johnson esq player, but you simply want to see them become very solid #2s. Assuming we play the wait and see game, I think it is far more about Hester and Knox. When talking about whether we make a future play for a stud WR (a #1 WR), Bennett isn't going to be a huge factor, as I think few expect him to be a #1. Hester and Knox are the ones who have legit #1 potential. How those two develop this year will go a long way in determining whether we make a run at any of those studs next year. For Knox, he doesn't need to break out as a rookie and suddenly become a stud #1. I think he simply needs to show that potential. For me, what I hope for Knox is a rookie season similar to Devery Henderson. I do not expect him to become an everydown player, but do hope we can utilize his playmaking ability. I think the biggest factor though is Hester. Lovie has flat out said he believe Hester is a #1. While I have read many who have questioned him, frankly, he took a far greater leap at the WR position last year than I expected. Hester was never more than a part time WR in college, and even then, got by on pure talent rather than refined route running. We drafted him as a DB/returner, and his only non-special teams PT as a rookie was at DB. His 2nd season, we used him similar to how Miami did. He didn't really become a WR, but was simply given a few routes and trick plays to learn. Honestly, last year was more similar to a rookie season for him, at least at the WR position, and he started out as the #1 WR for us. 51-665 may have been below many fans expectations, but for me, he went above, not below, especially when you consider how lacking our passing game in general was. Beyond the numbers though, consider how much development he showed. Two years ago, he looked silly as Moose was pushing him into position as Hester was believed too stupid to learn the plays. Last year, there didn't seem to be that lack of knowledge. His route running, IMHO, really developed last year as well, both in deep and short routes. I am not saying he will ever be a GREAT route runner, but I think he at least showed a solid knowledge of the offense, which is more than I expected. I think Hester has a legit shot of becoming a damn good starting WR this year w/ Cutler throwing the rock, and an improved OL providing time for both QB and WR.

Let's see... He was right about Grossman and Benson. Every other analyst and NFL expert says our WR's are inadequate and you ripping him for that comment? Do you need another 88? I think the point is, when you are negative 100% of the time, you are going to be right X%, and further, when you only right negative one liners, the value decreases to the point of oblivian. Cutler is not going to magically make our WR's starting caliber. It's going to take time and a few heartaches before this recieving corps is considered decent. There is nothing magic about it. I realize that for a Bears fan, the idea of a franchise QB is about as mythical as a dragon, unicorn or similar, but other teams realize there is such a thing, and magic is not part of the equation. Yes, a franchise QB can make starting WRs out of WRs who were once considered less. Cutler had a rookie last year in Royal, and made him look pro bowl. You look around the league at the franchise QBs, and you will find many examples of average WRs who are made to look far better than average. Hester is already a starting caliber WR. There can be plenty of debate whether he is a #1 or a #2, but less argument of his being a starting caliber. That means we need to find only one more starter, and I think we have a pretty solid group for Cutler to work from. There's nothing magic about it. I think it very reasonable to believe Cutler will find Hester and one other WR to be starting caliber, and do so sooner rather than later.

One. I put TO in the same category in the general sense that he is an elite WR that comes w/ serious baggage. It is simply a matter of the baggage being of a different color. I agree Chad Johnson would be in that category too (baggage) but I was referring to WRs considered available, which I have not heard CJ being lately. Remember, I specifically said, numerous times, TO has kept on the right side of the law. The point of the whole discussion was essentially which type of WR is more/less desirable. One who has major legal issues. One who has major locker room cancer issues. Or one who has a little of both. Two. Don't believe for one second that when it comes to gun laws, I take a particular stance living in a place like Texas. I would actually be considered a bleeding heart liberal by most in that area. My point is simply that, when talking about an individual breaking laws, I put more weight on laws which are solid accross the country, rather than laws which very greatly. Not arguing he broke the law, or that what he did wasn't wrong. My point is simply that breaking a gun law is not as bad as beating a women. I am not a Burress fan. At the same time, in looking a bit more at his two "baggage issues". Legal - He doesn't have a history of breaking the law, and the one criminal offense would not even be a crime in many states. That isn't to remove guilt, but in looking at a player's future liklihood of staying w/in the law, I think it does help. Yes, Illinois has serious gun laws too (just ask Tank) but w/o a more significant criminal history, does this one offense really mean he is a guy you expect to break the law again. Locker room cancer - While this is the perception, the number of players that come to his defense speaks to the opposite. He has had trouble w/ coaches, but I am not sure he can be considered a locker room cancer when the players all like him and stick up for him. Understand. I am not a Burruss supporter. I have warmed to him some over the last month, but considering I was pretty much ice cold on him, that is only relative. Personally, and I have said this before, I would just as soon go w/ the young players we have, and see if any of them can develop into the stud we all want. If Orton was our QB, I might be more prone to taking more risk w/ on a WR w/ some baggage, but w/ a QB like Cutler, I think our best course may be to simply give him, and the young WRs an opportunity to develop together.

Wait a minute. Rivera was the inside LBs coach, and you believe he is responsible or takes blame for the defenses struggles? Heck, I would argue that SD firing the DC and promoting Rivera speaks loudly to the alternative. As for what "his" scheme is, we don't really know. He has never been in a position to run a scheme of his own. In Phily, he was not the DC and only helped run the scheme already in place. In Chicago, he was the DC, but was forced to run Lovie's cover two scheme. In SD, he was not in charge, again, and had to help w/ Cottrell's scheme. He finally took over the D in SD, but it was late in the season, and he could only change it up so much. I think this year we will see more of Rivera and his scheme. From what I have read, while SD will continue to be a 3-4 defense, they are also expected to run more base 4-3. That is one thing I actually like about Rivera. He doesn't just have experience in one scheme, but has experience in many, and is in a better situation to adapt a scheme based on the talent available, rather than have to force players into a scheme they may not fit as he is limited in scheme knowledge. I think this is a big year for Rivera, as he will once again be in charge. If SD's D is solid or better (a good chance w/ Merriman returning) I think Rivera will against get a lot of HC consideration.

Take a look at this link, http://www.scoresreport.com/2009/05/21/sta...ughter-charges/ While it doesn't say the pedestrian "ran" out into the street, it does mention his jaywalking (not using the cross walk) and discussed the Florida law which likely was a big key in Stallworth not getting a more severe punishment. The guy just got off work, and immediately headed for the bus. He jaywalked, and I think it very logical to see how he was more concerned w/ catching the bus rather than traffic. Regardless, per the report, Stallworth tried to warn the pedestrian prior to the accident. From other reports I read, due to traffic and such, Stallworth didn't have much room to avoid a person who runs out into the street in front of him. At the end of the day, Stallworth should not have been driving, and has been punished, but there were numerous factors which helped him avoid a far more severe punishment.

Starting from the end, I don't think many here truly believe our trading for Marhsall is going to happen. Besides what you mention, which is legit, the simple truth is we have very little to offer. But you also have to admit the talk is inevitable. Agreed on all the rest. Money may well be a partial issue, though I think it would have more to do w/ the time/money it would take to try a NFL player. Just ask the DA how much time they are having to spend on Burress, and that is essentially a slam dunk (evidence wise) case, as opposed to the Stallworth case which would require numerous experts (cha ching), as well as an accident recreation in order to prove the accident was avoidable if the driver was sober.

No argument there. There are some who I honestly believe would, in their minds, say it was all the fault of the other, and not feel the guilt. From everything I have read, it sounds like Stallworth will feel the guilt of this one for the rest of his life.

Personally, I think it is more that a simple technicality. There is no question he was guilty of the DWI, but when it comes to the death of the pedestrian, there also seems to be little question the pedestrian was also a responsible party. You hate to "throw dirt" on the deceased, but while Stallworth has been getting ripped left and right (rightfully so) it was not his actions alone which caused the fatality.

yea, I too read that Stallworth has been 100% cooperative, and has shown legit remorse, rather than what you often hear/read about where an individual hides behind attorneys and such.

I never gave Lovie "carte blanc" trust. It is why I am considered such a nay-sayer on this board. I do not give anyone "benefit of doubt", at least not on all matters, nor do I have blind faith. I will criticize my favorite players/coach as easily as give praise to my biggest enemy. Hell, the fact that Angelo is my new BFF should be evidence of that. Back to Lovie, I just feel the changes in our organization structure are significant, a major factor in our teams turnaround, and an aspect that so rarely gets consideration. Lovie is part of that change, but it is that big picture change I think is key to our turnaround, rather than simply who our HC, DC, OC, or GM (individually) is.