jason

I think it would be slightly wasteful to sign Finley since nobody really knows the potential Davis may have, but if it's the double-edged sword of hurting a rival like this while picking up an already established player, it's a hard deal to pass up if the money is right. Talked to a friend today who is from Green Bay, and when I posed the idea to him he didn't seem to upset or concerned. Apparently the going thought in GB amongst the hard-core fans is that Finley, while talented, is inconsistent with his focus, routes, and hands.

Decent idea, but I wonder if he has gas left in the tank. It would be nice to have someone on the other side of Peppers that can actually cause pressure.

You know what's odd, I haven't seen anything posted on the Chicago Bears FB page. I'm sure if they posted it there would be a ton of likes already.

Yes, they could cut him. Hold a brief press conference, say his antics in the locker-room were contradictory to the team's wishes, spell out exactly what he did so that it's clear who was in the wrong, and then they could cut him. At this point, it wouldn't surprise anyone because of exactly what you're saying. Everyone thinks he's a cancer, so the Bears would not lose any PR battles because it would be something all the other teams could relate to. The best that happens is, he helps the team tremendously. The worst that happens is, he acts like a douche and he gets cut with no skin off the Bears' ass.

Could you be more dense? Simple ignoring a stat doesn't mean the stat doesn't matter. The fact is, Knox typically runs longer routes, which is why he has less targets. This is directly attributable to how much time a QB has in the pocket, and how long protection holds up. Attempting to make your point based on scoring is disingenous at best, ignorant at worst, because it doesn't take into account rushing, field position, and a variety of other considerations. Discounting targets when referencing the passing game and offensive scheme, and then talking about points shows you're either ignoring stats, or have very little understanding of them as they relate to our discussion and football. Especially when Cutler averaged an 87.7 QBR, 56% completion percentage, 16.6 completions, 13.3 yards per completion, and barely over 1 TD per game during the winning streak. Yes, that's clearly going down field consistently and successfully. You want to talk about box scores, you go look at some for a change. For comparison, the QBs you clearly haven't looked at: Rodgers - 13.5 Yards Per Completion Brees - 11.7 YPC Brady - 13.1 YPC Romo - 12.1 YPC Stafford - 12.0 YPC Wow, another surprise, the QBs you say are throwing short and getting rid of the ball are pretty much right where Cutler is, and one of your examples, GB, actually throws for more YPC. Unfortunately, there is nowhere I can find that accurately reflects Yards Per Attempt, or where the pass was intended to be thrown on incompletions. Also, it's comical that you point to the Martz system as being ineffective at protecting the QB long enough to actually run the longer routes yet then say the OL was doing exactly that. Last but not least, if you don't know by now what I'm talking about, and you literally require me to spell out everything (i.e. putting in the word "consistently" and "successfully" each time a sentence is written), every time, and put in every word, every time, then you're incapable of even understanding the concept to begin with.

HELL YES. Now it's time for him to get Hester back focused for an explosive 2012 season.

I agree. I've been a fan of Jerome Simpson for some time. He could be reaching that point where he grasps it all and makes a breakthrough.

It will continue to be irritating until you realize it's the truth. You can't just spout off nonsense and expect not to be called on it. The simple fact is, the majority of the time this past season Cutler (and other Bears' QBs) did not have the sufficient time to adequately go to 5 and 7 step drops, nor did they have adequate time to read through progressions. It may have happened from time to time, maybe even a few plays in a row when the OL was playing well, but it didn't happen close to consistently. Cherry picking a few catches doesn't prove your point. The plural of anecdotal evidence is neither fact nor data. I don't know why you try to revise history and act like the Bears were going downfield every game all season. They may have ran the routes, but the success rate was severely diminished because the QB didn't have time. My god man, do you even have a memory of more than one week? Every single person on the board was saying that the Bears needed to go to shorter routes because Cutler didn't have time to wait for the longer routes to develop. This is fact. Did you ever stop to think that Cutler averaged 31 passes this year, and for the games they were regular contributors, the following breakdown occurred for the WRs: Bennett - 3 Games - 6.6 Targets Per Game Hester - 9 Games - 6.13 TPG Sanzenbacher - 7 Games - 4.7 TPG Knox - 11 Games - 3.9 TPG Williams - 11 Games - 3.18 TPG Wow, big surprise, Knox had less targets than all the other guys who ran underneath and/or slot-type routes! The only WR he had more targets than was Roy Freaking Williams, who may have been the biggest FA WR disappointment in history. Cutler did not have the time to consistently look for the WRs who were running longer-developing routes. Fact. It's not about how many they ran. It's about how many Cutler had the time to find. Why don't you understand that? And unless you can find me some reliable YAC numbers, it's very difficult to determine the YPC as an indicator of anything other than how a QB and WR worked TOGETHER. Keep in mind, I'm not saying any of the Bears' WRs are world-beaters. Despite the fact that I've been touting Bennett since he got drafted, he is clearly not a #1; he's a damn good #2. I'd love to see the Bears get a legit star at WR, and it's entirely possible this offseason, but the same problem will exist as long as Cutler (or whatever QB is in the game) is under consistent pressure. Tice all but came out and said in his interview as being selected OC that the OL wasn't cutting it, and they needed to get a lot of help (e.g. TEs in to block, 6 man OLs, RBs chipping more often) so the QB had time to find open WRs. Just accept it; it's fact. There were very few times this year, that certainly weren't consistent enough for a rhythm to be had, for Cutler to sit in the pocket and feel comfortable enough to go through progressions and/or wait for longer routes. Knox may have been wide open on a ton of routes downfield, but Cutler just didn't have the consistent time to wait on those plays. If he had waited, he may have gotten one or two more long TDs, but he would unequivocally taken a bunch more sacks and heard a whole lot of "he's holding the ball too long" talk. For the record: Kellen Davis may have made those plays. We just don't know because he was so underutilized in a Martz offense.

Kellen Davis shows it all in this one. Route running, hands, agility, strength, elusiveness, speed. All he needs is more opportunities to catch the ball and show what he can do. In this highlight reel, he displays his talents even more. Pay careful attention to nasty one-hander at about 2:51. The Bears don't need another TE. They need to work with what they have and develop the obvious talent.

No, they can't do that. It's illegal in all shapes and forms to be going forward at the snap. It would result in, based on what else is going on, one of the following fouls: -False Start -Illegal Motion -Illegal Shift -Illegal Formation

Completely agreed. First thing I thought of was Hester going into the hole as a FB, or trying to seal an edge on a toss-sweep. Bad idea.

False. Cutler and Co. were getting into a groove despite the fact that they were severely limited on the number of effective pass routes available. The reason there was a limit was the OL's inability to hold a block for more than 2 seconds consistently. If they were able to give Cutler a nice pocket to sit in and progress on reads, guys like Knox and Hester would be open more often by simple virtue of their speed. You're only looking at part of the picture. All the guys you mentioned have teams with good/great OLs. Hell, did you see the ridiculous amount of time Tebow had in the pocket and scrambling around behind the line of scrimmage? Have you ever watched Drew Brees drop back and feel rushed? And Eli Manning often could pick his nose before passing. They're all putting up huge numbers, but if you put them behind a shit OL, it doesn't matter what WRs they have; the numbers will fall drastically. Which is why the MuhMuh comment about "where WRs come to die" has so much merit. It spans offensive coordinators, quarterbacks, running backs, and just about every other turnover except HC and GM. Why? Because Lovie and JA never valued the OL as much as most other positions. Hopefully that will change, but as long as the OL is in flux and incapable of consistently protecting the QB, the WRs will never reach their true potential and we'll always be talking about getting that next big, bad WR.

Miraculous? That's just straight up nonsense.

Yes. The Bears would have to mortgage their entire draft to move into the top 5. That is not a move that should be made for any college player. The only time that type of trade is acceptable is when it's for an already established pro-bowler. And even then it better be at a key position. Having said all that, if it were to happen I'd hate it, but it would be much more tolerable if it's a LT, because the Bears need a LT more than WR (i.e. Webb is not better at LT than Knox, Bennett, or Hester is at WR) and in the grand scheme of things, LT is a more important position than WR.

I don't disagree with you. I've been saying it for years and years. I still don't understand how opposing teams are able to cover the speed between Knox and Hester, and then the route-running of Bennett. There has to be something off. That makes me think of a few possibilities: 1. The OL doesn't give them enough time to actually run routes that allow them to use their straight-line speed (most likely), 2. They don't know how to use angles to seperate (a bit of truth in this as well), 3. The routes being used don't compliment the WR speed (difficult to assess as long as #1 & #2 are true, but I haven't seen the Bears frequently execute the Green Bay quick-slant that has been killing the Bears for years), 4. Cutler doesn't trust in the routes/plays/protection (a little truth here as well). The point is, I don't think it's as simple as saying "get a new OC."

Any packer loss is a Bears win. Period. I cheered today like the Bears won the game. Great stuff.

Trading that much for one guy, no matter how highly rated, no matter how much he's predicted to be a superstar, is ridiculous when there are multiple holes. Trading up a little bit is one thing because the Bears have pieces to move, but that kind of move would be very costly. This shouldn't even be up for consideration. Especially since the FA list is so extensive.

haha...the spammer posted in the remove spammer thread.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's simple: A first round talent like Blackmon, Jeffery, or Floyd will be underutilized because they won't reach their full potential. They'll be undercoached, underdeveloped, and as a result they won't get the number of targets that a #1 somewhere else in a more prolific offense would get. TO, on the other hand, is already extremely developed; he's a future HoFer. He needs no technique coaching - personality coaching maybe. He knows how to play football already and will play to his full potential (for a big reason: he's playing for a future contract).

I really don't think it's an exaggeration. I think he's better than any WR on the roster overall. He can't be the legit #1 any more, but I think he's still better than any of the guys on the Bears. You're right though, most of the NFL people write him off, but I think a fair amount of that was just a league-wide, general disdain, and a lack of risk-taking (which is understandable). As for people who watched it, I thought he looked a little gimpy, like he had a very lightly sprained ankle or something, but he didn't look as bad as you make it out. The thread isn't a joke; it's a Bears' fans attempt to find answers to a situation that probably won't end up as well as everyone wants. I believe the Bears will pick up one big name FA WR, but I don't think they'll do nearly as much as most of you want. TO would be an unbelievable #2 on a team that has Bowe or VJax.

Why can't you cut him? That would be part of his contract. Small money, lots of incentives, easy to cut. If he causes BS, cut him. Simple. The positive side is, he's better than any WR the Bears have on the roster. Where are you getting this "can't cut him" nonsense?

The father time line made me laugh...but even at 39, and coming off a massive knee injury, he's better than any WR on the roster.

And yet, there are literally 27 other teams who have a better set of WRs than the Bears, and 4 other teams (CLE, JAX, TB, STL) who arguably have better WRs. The Bears are not in a position to be choosey about WRs when there is a future HoF'er available for pennies on the dollar but has been essentially black-balled out of the league - mostly his fault - under the guise of "injury concerns" instead of the reality of GMs not wanting to deal with him. It's absolutely ignorant thinking like that that shows these guys don't want to win 100%. They want to win, but they're not willing to sell out 100% for it. They want some utopia where everyone you pick up is a academic all-American and an Eagle Scout, but also can jump out of the stadium. It's the same thinking that has restricted the Bears in the past when TO AND Moss were available. You're telling me TO isn't better than the #5 WR on any roster in the NFL?! If so, you're insane. Is there potential risk? Sure. But unlike most #5 guys, there is also an upside they rarely have. If he screws up, he's cut. He doesn't have teams lining up for him any more. The difference, of course, between him and other #5 guys is that he's a future HoF'er who could teach virtually every WR in the NFL a thing or two about being a pro WR. And then there is the added bonus of him putting up stats. 72 Receptions and 9 TDs in 2010 before the knee injury. I don't see why he couldn't easily come in and put up 50rec/7TD, and that's being conservative.

Man, people on this board have been using virtually the same excuses for several years. There are a plethora of WRs out there who are younger, but I'd rather have TO than all of about 4 or 5 of them.

To be quite honest, I think Hernandez has more upside than Gronkowski. Hernandez fits the mold of the current WR/TE hybrid who poses an almost impossible matchup. He's too fast for most LBs, and too big for most DBs. They each have similar 40 times, but Hernandez is much more potent and quick out of his cuts. It's just a matter of size and versatility. Gronkowski is bigger and can block better, but Hernandez has better hands. A lot of teams want to catch-first TE, and Hernandez fits the bill perfectly. And if he bulks up a little bit without losing speed, he's a guaranteed all-star. Problem is, he's not leaving NE for the time being, the Pats' coaching staff and Brady are enamored with Gronkowski, and Hernandez is stuck playing second-TE on an offense that spreads the ball around a ton. Having said all that, no, I don't think they would be as productive on other teams. Hell, I know for a fact they wouldn't have been as productive on the Bears this season. Olsen's best year isn't as good as either of these guy's second year, and it's easy to argue that the stats could have been split more evenly if not for the NE style of play. Splitting the stats, they could have had 1100+yds each, and 17 TDs each. They are both great talents, but they wouldn't be nearly as productive as they are on the Patriots.