jason

Agreed. The notion that the Bears need to invest money in a pass-catching TE is false because Davis is an unknown with great potential at this point. Whereas others have shown they are not up to par while actually playing on the field (e.g. OL & WR), Davis has never really been given a chance to show his full arsenal of talent. Only glimpses. Spending money or a draft pick on a TE would be a mistake when so many other positions have much more glaring problems.

Nearly every measurable shows the Bears as having one of the worst OLs in the NFL. Pro Football Focus does individual and unit measurements, showing the Bears as the worst. Their Pass Block Efficiency shows that Garza wasn't as great at Center as some would believe. It should come as no surprise that Webb is one of the worst OTs, which I guess is a step up from begin the absolute worst RT in 2010 (Pssst, Omiyale was one of the worst LTs that year). On top of that, NFL.com shows the Bears OL as sixth worst in the NFL, 5th in sacks, and 5th in QB Hits. What's very interesting is the Power Left Stat, that shows a severe deficiency when attempting to get the difficult yards going left. When you combine the PBE from Pro Football Focus and the Power Left from NFL.com, it's no wonder ESPN classifies Webb as the worst full time starting LT in the NFL (though I suspect they could be referencing the 2010 figures and simply applying them to 2011 since he was bad enough not to shake the reputation as one of the worst OTs in the NFL). Finally, Football Outsiders gives a ton of reasons why OL should be first on the list, namely that the Bears are 9th worst in run blocking and 2nd worst in pass protection. I found the Stuffed statistic unsurprising, as the Bears OL last year was either boom or bust, with RBs being met in the backfield far too often (apparently at 24.1% of the runs). Will scheme change help this year? Yes. Will more experience help this year? Yes. Is the OL still weak, and one of the worst in the NFL? Yes. Is Webb still incredibly weak, and undeserving of a starting LT spot? Yes. No comparable stats exist that show the Bears' WRs are as bad at being WRs as the Bears' OL, and in particular Webb, are at being OLinemen. In my opinion, the facts bear out reality in this situation, and the Bears need a LT more than a WR. Since one isn't available in FA, it makes sense to land the WR (or two) in FA, and grab the LT prospect in the first. If one of the top four drops to the Bears, it should be a no brainer.

I just appreciated the common sense approach that manages the money, without mortgaging the future, to get a better team at minimal change. I'd much rather see Williams get a chance again at LT before seeing Webb play over there, because Williams, regardless of whether or not he played like a first rounder, is a better first rounder than Webb. But since Tice put his reputation on Webb, and we all heard the blocking dummy story when Tice was scouting Webb, he probably feels like he has to keep Webb at LT. Then Williams isn't wasted and there is an upgrade at LT over Webb. But an OL like the following is also a great idea: Mike Adams, Nicks, Garza, C. Williams, Carimi

With the way the salaries are progressing in the NFL, I don't think that's too much for the guy who is clearly the best OG in the NFL. It's not like he's just average. He's the best. He is rock-solid in pass protection and mauls defenders on running plays. He makes any offense immediately better in just about every possible way.

Daddy likes.

Moose of then vs. TO and Moss of now, I agree. If that's the issue it's just a matter of miscommunication. Even though I think Moose was highly overrated at the time. But if we're talking Moose of then vs. TO/Moss of the same year(s), then I stand by what I said. Out of the three, Moose was a distant third, despite coming off of his one huge year.

All of what you've said may be true, but I'd love it if the Bears just took a chance of catching lightning in a bottle. As for Moose, tell DBDB that. When he came up for FA it was after his one big year, he was overrated, and paid as a #1, but he was never more valuable or highly thought of than TO or Moss. Saying otherwise is just a fabrication.

Moose wasn't a maybe, but he WAS a question mark, and he certainly wasn't valued over Moss or Owens. I distinctly remember saying that he was valued too highly because he had a career year in 2004 (most yards and TDs of his career) and tricked people into thinking he was better than he really was. His stats and history were called into question by many. Also, he wasn't more in demand than Owens and Moss. Owens was already signed with Philly in 2004 and was easily more in demand when he hit the FA market. Hell, Owens was more in demand even with his next FA opportunity in Dallas. And Moss wasn't available either, but he did put up 13 TDs in an injury-filled year and would have gotten more suitors than Muhammed. Saying he was more in demand than Moss and TO is just ridiculous. Before his fluke year of 16 TDs, Muhammed had 7 total TDs in the three previous years. C'mon man, look in the mirror and be honest. If all three were available for the same money, Muhammed would have been third on the list of talent, and the only reason the demand would have been similar would be because, up until that point, he hadn't caused any off-field issues.

Probably, but the difference is that Holt actually did perform after he became a free agent. He wasn't an all pro, but he was a steady #2 WR that the Bears could have used just as well. Pace just plain sucked.

That's the kind of close-minded thinking the Bears' front office doesn't need. When desperate situations present themselves, you must open your mind to all possible scenarios for improvement. It's funny that the Bears wouldn't take that kind of chance, and many Bears fans support that restrictive mindset, yet the team many of us wish we could be (i.e. New England) signed Holt to a 1-year, 1.7mil contract. It wasn't necessarily Holt's performance that ended his career; it was a knee injury. The year before he had 51 catches for 722 yards, was the second leading WR, and could have easily done the same thing on a Bears team whose leading WR was Devin Hester - who many on this board want to stop playing WR - with 57 catches. Sorry, but the only dream world is the one in which he wouldn't have helped the Bears.

Why not? Beggars can't be choosers. There is a big difference between the maybes the Bears picked up (i.e. Moose, Roy) and the maybes available (i.e. Moss, Owens).

What do you mean by this? How can you know what would have happened if a player was signed or drafted in this hypothetical situation you have declared unsuccessful?

Yeah, the name drop was kind of interesting because he was added as an aging player with a great past, we all had lots of hope, and he wasn't effective. And at the time, just about everyone was in favor of him being signed. Kind of like a current situation.

The most interesting part of that entire thread: Almost three years ago and neither the LT nor WR position has been addressed. The sad part is, it has been longer than that. The need was known for so long, but it kept getting ignored and having bandaids thrown on each. No wonder JA got his ass canned.

The bolded part is exactly what I'm talking about. Go after the big name, current #1, get him. Then sign Moss as the wild card with incentive in his contract. Then draft a young guy early in the draft. If Moss acts up or doesn't perform - which I don't see happening to be quite honest, he knows it's the end of the line - he gets cut, and the rookie, Bennett, Hester, etc. get more throws their way.

No, I'm saying one each from the menu. Like a pu-pu platter of WRs. Either Jax or Bowe AND Either TO or Moss AND Either 2nd or 3rd round Combos could be... Jax, TO, 2nd Jax, Moss, 3rd Bowe, TO, 2nd Bowe, Moss, 3rd ...and so on.

I was actually unsure but hopeful for Roy. He had talent but could never fully realize that talent. I do know he made a highlight reel catch or two against the Bears. Saying what Moss will or won't do next year is different from a prediction. I think if he were on the Bears, he would do much better than Roy this year, and certainly better than a rookie. Just because you don't want him doesn't mean he's suddenly bad. He dominated a very short time ago, and there's no reason to believe he couldn't still be very effective this year.

I don't think it's an either/or situation. To me, the ideal situation is one of each of the following: A. V-Jax/Bowe B. Moss/TO C. 2nd/3rd rounder That way the Bears have nabbed a legit #1 with years left, taken a chance on a guy who has shown a history of dominance and could put up good numbers, and addressed the position with the future in mind.

That's so easy to say it's almost not worth saying. It's like saying, "Let's pick up a DE that gets 15 sacks a year." Of course everyone would be on board with it. But would you be against getting Bowe/Jackson/Colston AND Moss? To me, the idea of having Jackson/Moss/Bennett as the starting trio sounds like a recipe for a VERY happy Cutler. Not only that, but I don't see a team being able to guard that trio very well.

I don't think either guy is great, but I actually do think 1200/10 is a possibility for either because there aren't really other great options. Again, this isn't because I think they're still great, just that the options are limited and someone has to get the yards and TDs. I'd imagine Cutler would default to either guy over just about anyone else on roster. Agreed almost completely. Moss/TO shouldn't the answer, just the stop-gap while another FA and a rookie find their way. Depends on which team they go to. If Moss or TO went to the Bears, I'd take that bet. Sorry, I live in the Tennessee Titans broadcasting area. That's all I get on local stations. Tennessee quit on Moss. Go look at the targets. They didn't even really try to integrate him, and since they sucked, reason dictates that they try to use Moss. They didn't. I watched the games. They didn't use him.

And then they cut his ass. Easy. It's only a fascination because the need is so great. If there weren't a realistic possibility that the old WRs would perform better than the current young WRs it wouldn't be an issue.

HA! Sarcasm font. I'm not saying they solve all problems. I'm saying they are viable options that should have been explored LONG ago. If the Bears had gone after TO or Moss when they were both available the first or second time, we probably wouldn't have had the absence of #1 WR for, well, forever. Compare either Moss or TO's numbers to any Bears' WR over the same time and you'll find the disparity. Year after year everyone on the board supports the Bears' hesitancy to get either WR, and year after year there were three truths: the Bears didn't get either, the Bears lacked a true #1, and the two WRs kicked ass all over the league. The way I see it now, there is still a chance to catch lightning in a bottle with both of them. They each want to prove they still have it. They each could probably be signed to minimal, incentive-based contracts that could yield high results. If they start shit, cut them. If they don't, they could be just the push the Bears' offense needs to get up the hill. If I were GM, I'd sign them both. TO is the underneath possession guy; Moss is the over the top guy. I'd have Bennett and Hester in the mix (since I don't think Knox will be coming back), and I'd do everything I could to turn the offense into a west coast offense that max-protects on a fairly frequent basis. I'd draft LT in the first, someone like Toon or McNutt in the 2nd (to learn tricks of the trade from the soon to be HoFers), keep a FB and/or TE in on just about every play to protect Cutler, and let Jay throw for 4000+ yards.

Yeah, and imagine if the Bears would have actually made the move one of the countless offseasons we have had this debate/discussion. The Bears would have finally had a #1 WR. Something that hasn't been around in forever. But no, let's keep passing on them every year and ignoring the #1 WR while complaining every year about not having a #1 WR. The discussion is only remotely different now because they are older, but they were both available numerous times over numerous years...and the Bears could have had them both. But instead everyone would rather sit around a bitch about the potential that either of the two guys would cause problems...while getting 1200yds and 10TDs in their sleep.

Back to the opinions thread...we all have them, and we can agree to disagree, but please stop with the ridiculous comparisons to Roy Freaking Williams. Randy Moss and TO have always been better than Williams, and it's never been close.

I covered this a long time ago. Randy Moss would be a great addition and you have to almost totally discount his last year with three teams. He was barely used in New England, and then after that he was all but ignored. And this is especially true in Tennessee where he got almost no targets despite being on an atrocious passing offense without other options. He did not quit on them; they quit on him. I'd go so far as to say he's guaranteed to put up somewhere close to 10 TDs. He's just unguardable from a physical standpoint. And if the talk of him still being able to run a sub-4.4 is true, he's still a poor man's #1 WR, and better than any WR on the Bears' roster right now.