jason

HAHAHA! That's great.

Sigh. You still don't grasp "all things being equal." You prove it when you try to use the same discussion point in your favor, and especially in the sentence I bolded above. I'll try one last time, and then I quit this thread forever. 1. If all things were equal, all players would have the same abilities. EVERY ability. 2. Therefore, if you were to go in and change a SINGLE attribute of a SINGLE player, and that attribute happened to be height, then, yes, that ONE guy would have an advantage. 3. But since all things ARE NOT equal, and all these guys do not come off an assembly line, height or weight does not, by itself, provide a player the advantage necessary to be superior. Yes, if you have to choose between two players who are nearly identical (see point #1), then you may as well go with the taller player. 4. This is why a player like Welker, who has superior speed, quickness, route running, hands, vision, etc. is better than someone who is taller but not as polished in the attributes mentioned. Yes, if you have to choose between Welker and Megatron, who also has superior speed, quickness, route running, hands, vision, strength, etc., you go with Megatron. At the same time, you always choose Welker over 6'5" David Nelson. Because all things aren't equal. 5. Not so surprisingly, the NFL guys do not simply go for the biggest or heaviest player. You could refer to my "All Wesson"-lineup posted several replies ago for proof. They are drafting guys who are tall and weigh a lot, but they are drafting them AHEAD of the guys who are the tallest and the heaviest. Why? Because all things aren't equal, and the added height or weight does not make up for the disadvantage those players have in other attributes. Guess who got drafted first out of 6'1" 207lbs Justin Blackmon and 6'3" 220lbs Michael Floyd?! Say it with me, all things are not equal, so the height/weight differential was not enough to make up for the other areas in which Michael Floyd was inferior to Justin Blackmon. Summary: If two guys have idential attributes in EVERY.SINGLE.WAY, then I agree with you. Grab the taller guy. But, that's not reality, and for the last time, all things aren't equal.

Don't be perplexed. I do not lack reading comprehension skills. I was simply posting something I read that pertains to the discussion. Another person's opinion, whether I agree with it or not. I actually believe what you believe about "all shapes and sizes," which is why the OMG HE'S TALLER SO HE'S BETTER WE CAN THROW JUMP BALLS ALL GAME! stuff is so nonsensical.

I decided to leave this post alone since the grasp of English is lacking, but I found an interesting tidbit from PFW (qouting a scout/coach/front office member) that relates: "In a lot of offenses, Wes Welker would be a slot guy only. He's smart and tough and likeable and gets the job done, but he is not close to being in the same category as a Greg Jennings or Calvin or Andre Johnson in the way of being a physically gifted receiver. Do you remember when Mike Furrey caught (nearly) 100 (passes) and Roy Williams was the only other receiver and then they picked Calvin Johnson with the second pick? Stats can really skew a players' view of talent. Remember when Houston was running the run-and-shoot with Drew Hill, Earnest Givens, and Haywood Jeffries? Jeffries had the most catches many years, but he caught a bunch of hitches and slants and was the third most talented receiver of the group. It's a similar story in New England."

From PFW (quoting an anonymous scout/coach/front office employee): "Watching Danieal Manning in Houston (last year), he has great instincts. He's a smart player. He just kept moving positions in Chicago. It was a question of development - not instincts. He is very talented." Not surprising.

This is not intended to be mean, but you have reading comprehension issues. You do not appear to understand what "all other things being equal" or "in and of itself" means. Similarly, you still don't seem to understand the basic concepts of this discussion (i.e. height doesn't have to be a "disadvantage" for someone taller to lose to someone shorter).

Offense We better hope it's either Williams or Carimi, otherwise Cutler will take a beating again this year. Defense I'd say since people are high on Paea and Melton, it's a safe bet to say one of them will breakout.

I did notice, however, he had more TDs total than the number of TDs requiring someone to simply be taller and/or have great jumping ability. For the record, the two are not necessarily linked. In other words, it's possible for someone to be shorter, have greater jumping ability, and still win the jump ball. And that kind of invalidates the whole point of the video you most recently posted (especially since a lot of the highlights have virtually nothing to do with height). At least acknowledge that you understand the basic premise that height, in and of itself, is not necessarily an advantage, but all other things being equal (which only exists in a fantasy world), a taller player has an advantage over a shorter player. I only ask because you continue to ignore the basic concept, and only focus on the guys like Moss, Fitz, AJ, TO, and Megatron who are more than equal in many ways beyond simply their height.

What's funny about that video is that only eight of those TDs occurred because a player was taller or could jump higher. Hell, the first 11 had nothing to do with height. Out of the 8 TDs, there were 5 jump balls to Moss. And Moss can jump out of the gym; he's a genetic freak. Other than that, there are two fade passes (one each to Watson and Gaffney) that were directly affected by height, and one play that Moss made that was simply nasty in double coverage (the announcer called it a jump ball, but Moss actually caught it pretty low). So, 58 total TDs in that video. Eight were greatly aided by the WR height. If that's the best example you have, it's not a good one.

If that's your point, you should have just said so. We would all have understood it. But the way you've presented the info over and over makes it look like you think someone is better just because he's taller. Which isn't true because, all things aren't equal. Yes, if each player in the league has the same strength, quickness, jumping ability, dexterity, hand-eye coordination, similar hand width and strength, ability to keep speed out of a cut, etc., etc., etc., then the guy who is taller has an advantage. But, again, all things are not equal. Give me Welker over Gaffney 8 days out of the week. Same goes for just about all but 5 or 6 WRs in the NFL, because, all things aren't equal. These guys aren't Ford assembly line productions. They are different in too numerous ways to count. Which is why simply clamoring for a taller player - the David Terrell example is perfect because he was taller and wasn't very good - doesn't make sense. Taller and extremely talented? Sure. But just being tall doesn't make them better. For the last time, all things aren't equal. BTW - I love that the video you linked starts off with Welker juking a DB for a TD. Classic!

Me either. Football doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and laying out the hypotheticals like he does just doesn't make sense. Tall WRs get shutdown by shorter DBs too frequently to even quantify. The two or three times per game the tall WR has a physical advantage because of pure height - which may be less than that depending on scheme and/or comparative jumping ability of the WR/DB in question - makes the whole point nonsensical. All things being equal, yes, a taller WR has an advantage. But all things aren't equal. Give me a WR corp full of Wes Welkers and I'll give you an unstoppable offense like the 91 Houston Oilers. Conversely, give me a WR corp full of David Terrells and I'll show you a team that has to run a lot.

My favorite example of a height advantage:

Do you realize the bold part above is unquestionably contradictory? The word better means a player has an advantage.

LMAO. I object. Could they be two current ST players who will be used at WR because they used to play WR? Aside from that, there have been plenty of points made, and countered very clearly. Just rereading the entire thread becomes comical with how poorly the points are made. To summarize: 1. What is best for the team, with implications that the moves made will work out, is inconsequential since the Bears are batting about .500 the past decade. Continually pointing to the moves as if they are undebateable is entirely flawed given the Bears' history. 2. Weight and height do not automatically equate to on-field success. Period. 3. Being schemed to play a position you haven't played in several years - particularly if this position is fundamentally different than a player's current position - is entirely different than using a player in an emergency situation simply because he's athletic (i.e. Pats). In addition, the position for which a player is drafted, or where he played in college, means nearly nothing if the NFL doesn't view that player as that position anymore. A player is what he currently is, not what he was. It's the reason Urlacher isn't a Safety in the pros, and why many college LTs get moved inside when they make the NFL. This holds particular value when discussing the number of players brought in by the Bears to play a certain position. While some players have done things before, and may technically be a position by previous trade, the implication was that the Bears would sign four WRs to play WR, not four WRs so two of them could play ST (selection7 reinforced this point well). Similarly, not all players are equal, so bringing in one of the most dynamic players in history to prove a point about two guys who haven't cut it at their originally drafted positions is ridiculous.

That's the fun of it sometimes for me. Debating to see if either the opposing party can be reasoned with (not possible in this situation) or there is middle ground to be had.

Look, I can't help it if he doesn't have a dictionary and can't read the definition for the word "automatically." Wesson's starting offensive lineup: QB - Thomas Jones - Afterall, a bigger arm means stronger throws. RB - Usain Bolt - Dude is the fastest guy on the planet, right? FB - Bryant McKinnie - 6'8", 360lbs. He would obviously be the best FB of all time. Who could stop him? WR - Luc Longley. Thanks for that one TD WR - Omer Asik. Gotta go with another Bull. TE - Ali Villanueva. 6'11", 285lbs. HA! Cutler just has to throw it in the air like Jeff Blake! UNSTOPPABLE. LT - Konishiki LG - John Brower Minnoch - 1400lbs. Try to get around him! C - Toniu Fonoti - At 320lbs or so he's obviously the lightest, but we need a player at this position who can see past his gut to touch the ball. RG - Manuel Uribe - 1300lbs. Best OG tandem ever? RT - Akebono In all seriousness, if bigger were always better, Wes Welker wouldn't have made the NFL, and the Denver Broncos OL wouldn't have been one of the best for all those years when it was one of the lightest. Although, I wouldn't mind seeing Cutler stand in the pocket behind the fat-OL above for the series they play before they got tired.

You could potentially be the mose dense person to ever post on this forum. You contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. If they no longer play WR, they are not WRs. Why don't you understand that? The draft has nothing to do with the game if the players are moved to another position because of their lack of production/ability/opportunity at their original position. Summarization... A- Weems and Thomas are now ST players. That's all there is to it. If a player can't cut it at their drafted position, but they are talented elsewhere, they may make a team's roster at another position. That makes them the new position, not the one in which they were drafted. That topic of talent is why I was in favor of... B- Devin Hester's position change. Devin Hester didn't really have a position when he was drafted, was drafted as an athlete, became an amazing returner, and had more raw ability than perhaps any player since Barry Sanders. A player like that you try to find opportunities for. But even someone as immensely physically talented as Hester initially struggled. That initial struggle is why I'm against... C- Henry Melton playing FB. Him playing FB doesn't make a lot of sense since he hasn't done it in a while, he isn't a dominant performer at his current position, the initial struggle is likely, the likelihood of injury increases, the Bears already have a FB on the roster, and already have two starting-quality RBs on the roster. Your last point is stupid for two reasons: 1. Nobody on this board has influence, so there is no point bringing it up. Again. 2. You don't know that the change will be positive. Neither do the coaches. And that's the entire point of having a board like this, where we get to pontificate on what the players, coaches, GMs, etc. should do since we don't have influence (see #1)

Say it with me: 1. None of these players are Devin Hester. 2. More weight doesn't automatically make someone a better blocker 3. More height doesn't automatically make someone a better pass receiver Do they weigh more or stand taller? Sure. And if all the battles came down to pure mass or all misthrown balls were just a little high, you'd have a point. I'd say the number of INTs Cutler threw that were directy attributable to WRs not attacking the ball is very minimal. More were caused me QB pressure, bad routes by Knox, and poor throwing mechanics. Jeffery shouldn't be handed the #2 position because he's taller, or because he was drafted higher. If the player in front of him knows the routes and playbook better, steps up during the game, makes clutch catches, and goes all out in all facets of the game, then Jeffery should get the reps he deserves...which is less than the starter. If you were the GM, we'd draft nothing but 6'6" WRs and 350lb FBs.

Likewise, dude, likewise. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a beauty pageant contestant. Both players, no matter how much PT you and their moms hope they get at WR, are playing way more ST than O. And in the case of Weems, it will be about 99.5% ST to .5% WR. That makes them guys who play ST but were drafted to be WRs. Weems and Thomas were drafted as WRs, but now play on STs. It's not like the Bears management said, "Dude! Did you see Weems on the two catches he had last year?! Holy hell, we gotta sign that guy and get him in on offense!" Also, if you mention nonsense about Devin Hester (trust me, the comparison is nonsense for multiple reasons) to support your claim, I'm going to point out why it's nonsense. By your logic the Bears should pass around a sheet in the locker and ask everyone what they positions they played in college, and if they'd like to get some reps in at any positions in which they don't currently see the field.

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

1. Now that Hester has been playing WR for several years, the "what position were the drafted"-point is inconsequential. 1a. Bringing up Hester's position is kind of silly since he's potentially the most exciting, elusive, explosive player in NFL history since Barry Sanders. 2. You realize the Bears aren't going to throw 20 jump balls a game, right?

We've heard hyperbole and coach-speak before. I'll wait to see the results before I blindly buy in.

The point is not moot. You don't think very deeply on any of this, do you? What was the result of moving a ST player to WR? 1. He became an average WR. 2. More importantly, his ability and impact on ST (you know, where he's best at) was immediately diminished. Just go to his stats and you can see he's listed as a PR year one, KR/PR year two, and then PR/WR thereafter. First two years as a primary ST player (what he is), 11 return TDs. The next two years when they force-fed him into a WR role? 0 return TDs. It took him three years to get back to his old self. Funny, we're back to full circle on this thread topic where the idea of using Melton at FB is tossed around. Learn from the Hester experiment; we don't need a three year experiment at FB. Sorry, dude, other than the players and their mothers, you're about the only person in the world who considers Weems and Thomas primarily WRs. Weems had 189 touches on ST the past three years, and 6 receptions. He's exclusively a ST player. End of discussion. Thomas is at least in possession of more career receptions than a good WR gets in one game, but he's still got more ST touches (60) to receptions (43) - which is why I said Thomas was the only one even up for debate.

I don't know why you're being so oblivious about this. Common convention and roster size doesn't allow any team to just pick up ST players, so they have to pick up guys who are ST players who happen to have a position after their name. The position after their name means nothing, however, because in reality their position is ST. There is no debating that Weems and Thomas are unlikely to see the field on offense. Your argument is akin to saying Doug Flutie should be called a kicker because he did that drop kick one time. His normal position, where he was on the field 99.9% of the time, was QB. Therefore, he's a QB. Is Forte a QB because he gets to throw one or two passes per year? No. He's a RB. Similarly, Thomas and Weems are ST players until something drastic happens to Marshall, Hester, Bennett, and Jeffery...maybe even Sanz. Here's a good article about the subject. Go to Google and type in "Eric Weems"+"Chicago Bears"... Link 1: "Kick returner/wide receiver" 2: "Special Teams Ace" 3: "Return Man" 4: "Return Specialist and Gunner on Special Teams" 5: "Special Teams Ace" The ONLY player up for debate is Thomas - absolutely killed it last year with 3 receptions - who maaaaybe will win the #5 battle over Sanz, and that's only because Knox is injured. BTW, the answer to your question of where they will line up? Regardless of the lead or deficit, their primary position on the Bears will be on Special Teams.

I don't buy that for one moment. Regardelss of talent, the quick slant is a route that has been used for eons, and the Packers have gutted the Bears for years with it. Despite that, however, the Bears very infrequently used it in recent memory. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the Bears didn't even use the entire route tree. Having the talent helps, but exploiting the talent available helps more. And that's what I don't think has happened very well.