adam Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Well think about it like this he was the last Bear to catch 100 passes not too much room for dropped passes. He said Booker "never had a problem dropping the ball", which means he drops the ball easily. Now if he never had a problem catching the ball, that would be a different story. Now that would make sense. The only issue would be the cap hit. Would Booker salary+Moose Cap hit be more than Moose's 2008 salary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Couple points One. I disagree it is a push between Moose and Book, or that Moose has a step on Book. While I am not saying Booker is fast, I have seen nothing from Moose to lead me to believe he is faster. They may be similar in many areas, but the one area I have to give a big edge to Booker on is hands. Booker still catches everything thrown his way. Moose? It's about 50/50 whether he makes the catch. Two. I would love to draft a WR in the 4th that is in the Engram mold, but I simply do not think it is so easy. We tried last w/ Wade, and it didn't work. Many thought it would be Hass, but he couldn't get onto the field. I would add that I still think this is a weaker WR class in the draft, and players will be over-valued due to that. Three. I want to draft a WR if one is available, but do not see how that is exclusive of signing a WR like Booker. I think Berrian is gone, and while we may not cut Moose, his value is minimal based on what I have seen. Sad thing is, we are so weak at WR that Moose is still our best. So IMHO, we can afford to add more than one WR this offseason. Four. While I am all for drafting a WR, I do not think we should expect much from him, especially if we draft a WR in the 4th. I simply look at our WRs, and feel we are totally lacking. Do we have potential? Yes, but I would argue that potential is in downfield threats (Hester/Bradley). I don't see a WR that is likely to develop into that underneath guy to help the QB. Things may change, but as of today, we do not have a good, much less great, QB. We have one of the worst OLs in the league as well. To me, we need a WR that QB can rely on. I do not see that on the team. I do not see that added through the draft. Booker well could be that WR though. Price is a big question. While I would not expect him to get much, the WR class in FA is so weak, who knows. Hell, I think so little of our group of WRs, I can make an argument for keeping both he and Moose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I believe releasing Moose would basically be a wash when factoring bonus money v this years base pay. We could designate him as our June 1st cap hit (though we can cut him anytime we want) and spread his cap hit over two years, thus saving money this year. But more likely, if we cut him, factor it as a zero on the spreadsheet, and bump up the salary cap any amount we sign Booker. My argument would be (a) Booker is not likely to generate a big payday and ( while it would raise our cap to replace Moose w/ Booker, I would argue that it is also an upgrade, and thus worth the raise in the cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Drunk, you beat me to the punch! It's the HANDS! Big hands vs butterfingers! I disagree with that too. We have speed, we need hands. Booker isnt anything spectacular but he is (was) sure handed. It would be nice to have a guy out there who can trust on third downs. his numbers have obviously been on the decline but he is on one of the only few teams that has had worse qb problems than the Bears the past few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akshaz Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Bring him back!!! He'll be our best possession WR immediately. You could always count on Marty making the tough catches on 3rd down, get leveled and still hang onto the ball. We really haven't had anyone like that since he left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 there is not that big of a difference between Moose and Booker that warrants the cap difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 The big difference is HANDS vs BUTTERFINGERS.... Neither guy will cost too much in the grand scheme...I'd rather go with hands and Marty. there is not that big of a difference between Moose and Booker that warrants the cap difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 The big difference is HANDS vs BUTTERFINGERS.... Neither guy will cost too much in the grand scheme...I'd rather go with hands and Marty. I like Marty like everyone else, but he isn't going to be a major upgrade over Moose. At best, it would be a slight, very slight, upgrade, and I have my doubts about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 And per the usual the best wide out on this team is ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunkBomber Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Whats funny is if he hadnt played on the Bears I bet half of us wouldnt know who he was. You dont hear anything about that guy anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 And per the usual the best wide out on this team is ignored. Who would this be - Haas? Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Who would this be - Haas? Peace Yes. The best pure natural receiver on this team. He never even gets mentioned in these threads....it's a fuckin shame. Marty Booker?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I guess we just disagree. I think he is an upgrade to Moose. I don't see the dropsies...therefore, I see a better addition. Not to mention, Moose has been throwing players under the bus left and right recently. I'm not sure he isn't a cancer in the locker room... I like Marty like everyone else, but he isn't going to be a major upgrade over Moose. At best, it would be a slight, very slight, upgrade, and I have my doubts about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 Yes. The best pure natural receiver on this team. He never even gets mentioned in these threads....it's a fuckin shame. Marty Booker?? Hey, I want Haas to play as much as anyone else but your basing that comment on potential. Booker has over 500 career catches. He had 2 1000 yd seasons with the Bears. Haas has not played a down at receiver. There is no comparison. Again, I want to see him play. He should have been given the opportunity last yr. I am hopeful he breaks out this yr and gets and shows what we all think he can do. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted February 12, 2008 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I guess we just disagree. I think he is an upgrade to Moose. I don't see the dropsies...therefore, I see a better addition. Not to mention, Moose has been throwing players under the bus left and right recently. I'm not sure he isn't a cancer in the locker room... Moose's favorite past time is throwing his QBs under the bus. Would love to see him go and bring back Marty. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I honestly don't either... But at least as far as this part of the year goes...we can dream! Moose's favorite past time is throwing his QBs under the bus. Would love to see him go and bring back Marty. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Booker back to the Bears? By Vaughn McClure, 5:18 p.m. The Bears have been contacted about re-signing receiver Marty Booker, an NFL source said Tuesday. Booker, cut by the Miami Dolphins, has drawn interest from a number of teams. The Bears were not among the initial group which contacted Booker within 24 hours of his release, but Booker reportedly has made it clear that his first preference would be a return to Chicago. Booker was a third-round draft pick of the Bears in 1999 but was traded to the Dolphins in 2004 for defensive end Adewale Ogunleye and a third-round pick (linebacker Channing Crowder). Booker, who turns 32 on July 31, probably has at least a couple good years left in him despite being released by Miami. His production tailed off this past season with just 50 catches for 556 yards and one touchdown. But Miami was the fifth-worst offensive team in the league and Booker was the team’s leading receiver. The Bears will need an extra body at receiver with Bernard Berrian bound for free agency on Feb. 29 and Muhsin Muhammad possibly not in the team's plans. Plus general manager Jerry Angelo always liked Booker, who made the Pro Bowl with the Bears after the 2003 season. Booker still holds the team record for receptions in a season with 100 in 2001. He followed with 97 catches during his Pro Bowl season. Booker was due to make $4.3 million this coming season. Cutting him will give new Dolphins vice president Bill Parcells flexibility under the cap to pursue free agents, such as Berrian -- or Rex Grossman. The Dolphins entertained trade offers for Booker before the 2007 season. http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....er-back-to.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Let me ask this to anyone who can explain it: How can you realistically argue that Booker would be an upgrade over Moose at this point in his career? These are their stats for the past 3 years since Moose joined the team: 2007: Moose--570 yards, 3 TD's Booker--546 yards, 1 TD 2006: Moose--863 yards, 5 TD's Booker--747 yards, 6 TD's 2005: Moose--750 yards, 4 TD's Booker--686 yards, 3 TD's I keep reading how Booker has better hands, he might be faster, he's younger . . . but statistically he's inferior. Sure there's the argument for bad QB play, but it doesn't get much worse then when Moose had Orton in 2005. Granted I haven't watched many Dolphins games, but who here has? I just maintain tha Booker is not an upgrade. Moose is due to make 3 million & that's probably around what Booker will cost. We don't need two old/mediocre WR's on this team that can't stretch the field. Making changes for the hell of it is not helpful. I love Booker. How can you not love a guy who cried when he found out he was traded from Chicago? We haven't had a great WR since him. I have a damn Christmas ornament with him & Urlacher on it. But at this point in his career, he's not going to do much to help this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 First off, let me quote Mark Twain..."There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Number can be deceiving. I'd love to see a stat on drops! Or even better, drops on potential first downs! However, even if we look at numbers, they are about the same. Moose 12 TD's to Booker's 10. Moose 2183 yds to Booker's 1979. However, look at the teams. Besides the odd year that was last year, the Bears had a much better running game...thus opening up the field for WR's. Also, let's not forget that Chris Chambers was the #1 man in Miami for at least 2+ years, whereas Moose was the #1 man in Chicago. I think given that...Booker's numbers are more impressive. And Miami's QB's certainly weren't any better than ours. I'd venture to say they were actually worse. This isn't a change for s%&t's and giggle's. I think, and many other do as well, that this is an upgrade. And that if Marty is signed, Moose is let go. I actually think he'll do more to help the team than Moose and his butterfingers and under the bus throwing ways... Let me ask this to anyone who can explain it: How can you realistically argue that Booker would be an upgrade over Moose at this point in his career? These are their stats for the past 3 years since Moose joined the team: 2007: Moose--570 yards, 3 TD's Booker--546 yards, 1 TD 2006: Moose--863 yards, 5 TD's Booker--747 yards, 6 TD's 2005: Moose--750 yards, 4 TD's Booker--686 yards, 3 TD's I keep reading how Booker has better hands, he might be faster, he's younger . . . but statistically he's inferior. Sure there's the argument for bad QB play, but it doesn't get much worse then when Moose had Orton in 2005. Granted I haven't watched many Dolphins games, but who here has? I just maintain tha Booker is not an upgrade. Moose is due to make 3 million & that's probably around what Booker will cost. We don't need two old/mediocre WR's on this team that can't stretch the field. Making changes for the hell of it is not helpful. I love Booker. How can you not love a guy who cried when he found out he was traded from Chicago? We haven't had a great WR since him. I have a damn Christmas ornament with him & Urlacher on it. But at this point in his career, he's not going to do much to help this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Thanks for the post Prophet... It certianly lends credibility to this discussion! http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune....er-back-to.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiLoc69 Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 bradjock, I watch every Dolphins game and their QB situation has actually been much worse than ours. Not to mention that until this year, Chambers has been their number 1 receiver and gotten most passing plays called to him. The guy still catches everything thrown to him. He does seem really slow though. It's funny that this is even an issue now, I've been arguing all year with Dolfans how I'd LOVE to trade Moose for Booker and now we don't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 First off, let me quote Mark Twain..."There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Number can be deceiving. I'd love to see a stat on drops! Or even better, drops on potential first downs! However, even if we look at numbers, they are about the same. Moose 12 TD's to Booker's 10. Moose 2183 yds to Booker's 1979. However, look at the teams. Besides the odd year that was last year, the Bears had a much better running game...thus opening up the field for WR's. Also, let's not forget that Chris Chambers was the #1 man in Miami for at least 2+ years, whereas Moose was the #1 man in Chicago. I think given that...Booker's numbers are more impressive. And Miami's QB's certainly weren't any better than ours. I'd venture to say they were actually worse. This isn't a change for s%&t's and giggle's. I think, and many other do as well, that this is an upgrade. And that if Marty is signed, Moose is let go. I actually think he'll do more to help the team than Moose and his butterfingers and under the bus throwing ways... So statistics be damned, here's what I know about Booker: 1) Terry Shea did not like Booker. (which by itself means nothing until you consider) 2) EVERY year Booker's been with Miami there's been talk of them getting rid of him. 3) He was never more then an "over the middle" type receiver. 4) San Diego wanted Chambers, not Booker. 5) One of the first things Parcells does is dump Booker. Booker has the ability to be an ok #2 or #3 receiver. But isn't that what Moose is? I just REALLY don't understand how you can presume that Booker would be any better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 Thanks for the post Prophet... It certianly lends credibility to this discussion! When an agent contacts the team, and the agent lets the media know they are talking with the team, that's the agent trying to get better for his client. Other then the fact that "Angelo likes Booker" (he probably likes a lot of former players not named Tank) there is nothing to suggest the Bears have any interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradjock Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 bradjock, I watch every Dolphins game and their QB situation has actually been much worse than ours. Not to mention that until this year, Chambers has been their number 1 receiver and gotten most passing plays called to him. The guy still catches everything thrown to him. He does seem really slow though. It's funny that this is even an issue now, I've been arguing all year with Dolfans how I'd LOVE to trade Moose for Booker and now we don't have to. I hate to state the stupidly obvious, but if he catches everything thrown to him, why didn't the Dolphins throw his way every time? As bad as Miami QB's have been, other teams traded to get Welker & Chambers, yet Miami dumps the guy that catches everything? Sorry, but that makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 OK... 1. Terry Shea was a bad coordinator. His opinion mean virtually nothing. 2. Miami wanting to get rid of him is somehow supposed to mean he's not good? I'm not so sure they were a good judge of talent either. Didn't these geniuses pick Culpeppy over Brees? 3. Isn't an over the middle possession guy what we need? We've got speed...and no hands. 4. Um, I think just about every person on earth would prefer Chambers over Booker. That's not an option here. The option is Booker over Moose. 5. Ok, now you finally have something. I do put some stock in Parcells. However, I think he's just cleaning house and cap room for major additions, etc. I will give you this one. But still. I think he'd have unloaded Moose. Yes! I presume he'd be better...because he doesn't have the dropsies! THAT'S HUGE!!!! ...and he's not prone to throwing his teammates under the bus like Moose has done time and time again! I think that makes him a better fit at the moment. So statistics be damned, here's what I know about Booker: 1) Terry Shea did not like Booker. (which by itself means nothing until you consider) 2) EVERY year Booker's been with Miami there's been talk of them getting rid of him. 3) He was never more then an "over the middle" type receiver. 4) San Diego wanted Chambers, not Booker. 5) One of the first things Parcells does is dump Booker. Booker has the ability to be an ok #2 or #3 receiver. But isn't that what Moose is? I just REALLY don't understand how you can presume that Booker would be any better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.