jason

This is a short blurb linked from Forte's twitter account. They both look good, but notice that Forte appears to be pushing harder (I like). http://www.twitvid.com/XHUGT

I will obviously be unhappy, but it's not for the reason you'd think. The reason I wouldn't like the picture being painted by this article is that it marginalizes Williams. Are the Bears giving up on him already? A first rounder they've tossed around? A guy who has been hurt? I think it should be Williams and Carimi at the tackles. This plays out pretty easy for me. Carimi was drafted to play LT. Period. End of discussion. It has even been confirmed by the media and the coaching staff. So that leaves RT open. Webb was rated the worst offensive lineman on the Bears, and maybe the worst in the NFL, last year and gave up a ton of sacks. The only reason he saw time was Williams's injury. I have way more faith in Williams at RT than Webb. The OL should be: Carimi - BLAH - Kreutz - BLAH - Williams Just because the OGs suck doesn't mean a former first rounder should be used as a utility lineman. The solution is to draft or sign competent guards so the square peg doesn't get shoved into the round hole.

Since this board was pretty pro-league when we discussed the current lockout, I'm curious as to where everyone stands on the James Harrison comments. Also, if the Steelers cut ties with him, would you want him on the Bears?

Comparing Pierre to Moss is laughable. Pierre will be forgotten in 20 years, and Moss will still be discussed as one of the greatest WRs of all time. The two are nowhere near the same ballpark. Your statements about Pierre are dead on accurate...but Moss didn't put up the career stats he has by simply running a fly pattern. His football talents FAR outweigh anything Pierre did, or will ever do.

Now THIS is a valid reason why the Bears shouldn't get Randy Moss. He does half ass it when he is disinterested. And we've already seen what half assed routes can lead to in a Martz offense (Cutler and a few of his interceptions are looking at you Knox). But any talk of his talent being lessened because he had to go to a few teams last year is just ridiculous. The guy still has the physical goods.

COMPLETELY disagreed. When the Pats get rid of you, it's because they are already a team that has proven it can win without you. They are the equivalent of a millionaire throwing away 50 bucks. The did because they can.

Let's analyze that a bit... NE - 4 games, 9 rec, 3 TDs. Not the receptions you'd normally like, but 3 TDs in 4 games equates to 12 in a season, which is a very good season for 90% of the WRs in the NFL. MIN - 4 games, 13 rec, 2 TDs. Again, not up to Moss standards, but they were still figuring out how to use him and he still got 3 catches a game. Keep in mind that players spend the entire offseason, and sometimes multiple years, trying to figure out how to play on an offense. On top of that, Farv was atrocious last year. On top of THAT, the fourth game was against NE: a much better team than the Vikings, a team Moss just left, and a team Moss still wanted to be on. So, really those stats (except for one catch) were in 3 games. TEN - I live where the Titans are covered exclusively, and he didn't work out because they never gave him a shot. He barely saw the field (only started four of eight), and when he did, he saw the ball even less (had multiple no catch games). Add to that the Titans run-first philosophy, their turmoil at QB, and their inconsistency when the QB position was decided, and there was no chance for a WR to succeed there. It's not a slight on Moss that he wasn't used; it's a slight on the Titans' organization from top to bottom. Sorry, but I just don't buy the thought that last season defines how Randy Moss can play at this current time. He's much better than that. His previous season of 83 catches, 1200+ yards, and 13TDs speaks volumes...just like his off the field antics that led to last season.

Yeah, but it's comical because just about everyone seems to be jerking it to the thought of picking up Plax, a guy, who, ya know, just got out of prison for actually committing a crime, but have in the same breath said something similar to, "Oh, no. Not TO or Moss. Those guys wouldn't work." Even though anyone who's been watching football knows that TO would be a better option than Plax, and Moss probably still has more raw talent and ability (not that he was given a chance to show it the past year or so).

Agreed. Idiot. I just wish the closing to the article wasn't so true and bittersweet... The record-setting running back in college got only four carries in the first season under offensive coordinator Mike Martz. Wolfe never really got a chance to get involved offensively under Ron Turner either as he has only 72 rushing attempts in his career.

That's better than when I tried to do the same thing (I removed political content without changing the post's football content or message), and someone on the board cried like a bitch, and I essentially got "demoted" from admin.

But, but, but...all those guys from all those teams have all been in the NFL for years, and therefore all know what they are doing!!! Isn't that what has been said ad nauseum on this board? I firmly believe this board could have had a better draft history over the last than the Bears' braintrust.

But that probably has a lot to do with the fact that OL is about twice the need as DT is on the Bears, and Jay Cutler's health - by extension this team's offensive success - is directly tied to that pick.

Quick thoughts on Santonio Holmes: 1) How can any of you guys want Holmes and in the same breath (or in a previous post) get all bent out of shape about the possibility of Moss or TO. Hell, if we want a #1, it's Moss. He has a proven track record in games, and got screwed around last year. I'd rather take the guy with more talent if we're going to pick up a guy with problems off the field. 2) Is Holmes really all that reliable? Everything I can find shows that he's got somewhat unreliable hands and a case of the drops. He's not the worst in the league, but he's certainly not the best. (I realize that drops correlates, to some extent, to the number of targets). Iffy hands doesn't sound like #1 WR stuff to me. Clearly "number of targets" and "team leader" data aren't reliable, because there are a ton of other factors to measure (e.g. opponent, type of offense, type of defenses faced, number of targets, team's record, team's scoring, etc.). But let's put it another way: If this were a fantasy football draft, is he even in the top 10 WRs? Top 15? The fact that there is guaranteed pause tells me he's not really a true #1. I'm not seeing the consistency spoken of in this thread. I'm not seeing the reliability spoken of in this thread. The fact is, he is an above average WR who has one or two big games each year, and disappears in other games during the year. Of course, the same applies to Knox. STATS % of Catches Per Target Over the last three years - when Holmes has been considered a #1 WR, which is based primarily on his # of targets (2010:95, 2009:138,2008:114) - he has 40 total regular season games and 181 catches. Right off the bat we have the following: % of Catches Per Target = 52% (By comparison, Knox - if he's the #1 WR for the Bears - has 54%.) Small/Medium/Large Games Small = Less than 5 catches Medium = 5 or 6 catches Large = More than 6 catches Holmes: 47.5%, 37.5%, 15%, respectively. Knox: 76%, 24%, 0%, respectively. This leads to the concept that Knox is shut down more easily than Holmes, but it's a far too simplistic rubric. Again, we could point to a variety of reasons for this difference. % of QB Completions Holmes - 2010:24%, 2009:23% Knox - 2010:19%,2009:14% Now, this could be taken multiple ways. It could be an indication of QB/WR trust, or perhaps a way to determine if the QB spreads the ball around a bit more. Of note, however, is that over the last two years, the Bears have had 1 more receiver (i.e. eligible pass catcher) with significant catches (i.e. >19) than the teams on which Holmes has played. 2010 - Jets - 5, 2009 - Pitt - 6 2010 - Bears - 6, 2010 - Bears - 7 This gives more support to the hypothesis that the Bears spread the ball around more. ==================================================== Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to crunch a few numbers. Food for thought.

Knox is ALREADY a #2, at worst. I'd say he's more of a 1.5. You've pegged Bennett correctly, even though I honestly believe he's a 2.5. I obviously give the "rankings" in jest as a way to say that each player above is better than the slotted area into which everyone wants to put him. And I that's the problem with the Bears' WRs. None of them can step up into the roles that we'd like them to step up into. Whether that's play design, QB decision, OL protection, or something else, they are currently hindered from becoming the receivers they could be. This goes right back to what Muhsin Muhammad said, "Chicago is where receivers go to die." But since Muhammad there have been multiple changes, so the axiom shouldn't hold true anymore. Should it? This is what helps to shape my OL, OL, OL thoughts for the past few years. I just don't think it can consistently be the WRs. It's something else. I see talent in the Bears' WR corp, but it never seems to shine through. Now if we could put Bennett's hands/toughness on/in Knox, or give Knox's speed to Bennett, then we'd be talking.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Surely Mendenhall has an agent telling him the following: 1) Close your myspace account 2) Close your facebook account 3) Close your twitter account 4) STFU unless someone specifically asks your dumb ass about football

And I'm fine with the disagreement. The thing I have to ask, however, is "what's a #1?" In the Bears offense, we don't know because there isn't time to run 5 step drops when Cutler is getting hit on most 3 step drops. And 7 step drops are out of the question. Go look at some Warner highlights with the Rams. He was CONSTANTLY in 5 step drops, and there was a ton of time in the pocket. Did he get hit? Absolutely. But there were equal amounts of standing in the pocket surveying the field types of plays. Back to the #1 issue... Hester - Not a #1 because his route running isn't polished, has questionable hands at times, and will focus on ST. Bennett - Not a #1 because he's not fast enough to run away, not quick enough to consistently separate, and his routes aren't Marvin Harrison sharp. Knox - This is where I disagree. If this guy just toughens up mentally a bit (i.e. doesn't quit on routes, doesn't run incorrect routes), then I believe he could be just as much a #1 as someone like Steve Smith. Let's look at Knox for a second. 1 - Speed 2 - Quick Burst 3 - Adequate routes 4 - Good hands That combination says #1 to me. The Bears OL just has to consistently give Cutler enough time to work in more plays. There isn't a single #1 WR in NFL history who made a living on consistently getting open on 3-step routes. But to reply to defiantgiant, the fact that he can sometimes be shut down at the line is worrying...which is why he's not a compete #1 yet. Last but not least, I thought you wanted a #1?! What does Santonio Holmes have to do with this? Hell, Knox had more yards than him last year. I don't believe Holmes is anywhere this idea of a #1 WR.

No worries... Now we can get back to debating whether or not a "true #1 WR" (whatever that really means) would help an offense that has to pick Cutler off the ground every other play. I don't really think it's necessary, because I believe the combo of Bennett-Knox-Hester (and assorted cast) could put up huge, St. Louis type numbers if Cutler had time to stand in the pocket and hit on the various routes in the fully implemented Martz offense.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I even quoted you. "I think you're right that they need a top tier starting WR to compete in this division." There is no ambiguity in that statement. In this subsequent explanation, however, you've done a much better job of explaining yourself.

The last part essentially means we're in agreement. I don't necessarily believe we might need a prototypical #1 WR based upon what the other teams in the division do. Of course getting upgrades at every position would help the team. If the Bears managed to trade for Adrian Peterson, Peyton Manning, and Calvin Johnson I'd be all for it. But is it necessary to compete? I don't think so. I'd much rather see the latter two additions to the team instead of seeing a WR who would probably have similar problems to the guys last year (i.e. not enough time to run all the possible routes).

That's kind of my point, but your logic fails. You think you're using it against me, but you're not. What my point is, comparing your team to another, or pieces/players to another, is not a legit way to evaluate your own team. Saying, "The other teams have great WRs!" is not a valid way to analyze what the Bears have on their roster, nor is it a proper method to determine what strengths and weaknesses are. And given the parity in the league, simply looking at a team's record or divisional record is not a very bright way to determine what the team's needs are. The original comment was about "competing in the division." Given that the Bears won the division and only had one divisional loss, it makes the reasoning (i.e. gotta have the prototypical #1 WR to compete in the division) illogical.

First of all, the quote above is a viral misattribution to MLK Jr.'s. Second, read the entire article posted above. Here's a taste of Mendenhall's stupidity to whet the apetite: “What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side...’’ Either Mendenhall is colossally ignorant, or...well, there really isn't a second option.

That is such a bogus line of reasoning. In fact, it's not even reasoning. It's comparison. That's it. If the Bears needed a top tier starting WR to compete in this division, wouldn't they have done worse that winning the division? Not to mention going 5-1 within the division. You shall not covet your rival's WR. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's stadium or location, his offensive or defensive coordinator, his center or defensive back, or anything that belongs to your rival. Would having Vincent Jackson make the Bears better? No doubt. Is he a need to compete in the division? Unequivocally no. Are the Bears lacking a WR who can put up #1 WR stats? Up for debate...and until Cutler gets more than a second or two of uninterrupted time in the pocket, we might never know.

For those who wanted him, aren't you glad the Bears didn't get him now? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosen...,4140951.column

Rd 2, Pick 28 - Brandon Harris - DB Rd 4, Pick 30 - Rashad Carmichael - DB Rd 5, Pick 13 - Shiloh Keo, DB

I don't think the Bears have multiple positions of need, because I still think the clamoring for a WR is unwarranted. The main reason the WRs weren't standouts was the absolute failure of the OL. The bad OL play resulted in Cutler being harassed, hurt, jumpy, and eventually injured. That created a situation where the full compliment of offensive plays wasn't in use. That meant many of the routes that would benefit the Bears' offensive talent couldn't be used. Grabbing a mid-tier FA WR won't do much to help any of the above. Doesn't matter how tall he is. Making sure Cutler stays upright and Martz can implement a full offensive plan does matter.