2011 Bears Offseason thread

[rawaction]

Mike Martz on Earl Bennett

 

“He started [in 2009] and everybody talked about what a good player he is,” Martz said last September. “Jay [Cutler] kept saying, ‘He’s a good player, coach.’ But he was injured and didn’t get any reps and made mistakes out here. So I didn’t really have a lot to go on.”

 

“When he came back and he was ready to go, he instantly performed well,” Martz said. “He didn’t ease into it. He was good from the get-go.”

 

“We didn’t throw it to him enough,” Martz said. “That will be remedied. He will figure in a much larger role than he did last year. He came to us late. He was injured. I wasn’t really sure where he was with all the stuff. But he established himself as a guy who needs to get a lot more balls than he did.

 

“He’s extremely reliable. I know Jay feels comfortable with him in the slot doing some of those things,. But he should be able to play outside for us as well.”

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=7882

 

Is this where the Bears start trying to convince the fans that the WR corps that they have is good enough?

 

Maybe, but this is a positive, if it comes true. With the current WRs on the team, Bennett as the #1 target, Knox as the #2, and Hester in the slot is the best case scenario. I still hope they sign a WR that can play inside or outside.

[ctcf]

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/garrettwolfemugshot.jpg?w=169

 

Lieutenant Daniels!?!?

 

 

Also, JT Thomas is a BAMF

[jersey cubs fan]

Maybe, but this is a positive, if it comes true. With the current WRs on the team, Bennett as the #1 target, Knox as the #2, and Hester in the slot is the best case scenario. I still hope they sign a WR that can play inside or outside.

 

I have a really hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

[rawaction]

Maybe, but this is a positive, if it comes true. With the current WRs on the team, Bennett as the #1 target, Knox as the #2, and Hester in the slot is the best case scenario. I still hope they sign a WR that can play inside or outside.

 

I have a really hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

 

He put up 50+ catches and 900 yards in his 2nd year, as a 5th round pick, out of Abilene Christian....first as a starter. His numbers last year were pretty much in-line with what middle of the pack #2 WRs put up. Of course, he was the #1 target last year, so that's not good. But I think he'd be extremely effective with a guy on the other side of him who is good enough to take some of the coverage away from him and put him in 1-on-1's with #2 CBs.

[Banedon]

Maybe, but this is a positive, if it comes true. With the current WRs on the team, Bennett as the #1 target, Knox as the #2, and Hester in the slot is the best case scenario. I still hope they sign a WR that can play inside or outside.

 

I have a really hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

 

He put up 50+ catches and 900 yards in his 2nd year, as a 5th round pick, out of Abilene Christian....first as a starter. His numbers last year were pretty much in-line with what middle of the pack #2 WRs put up. Of course, he was the #1 target last year, so that's not good. But I think he'd be extremely effective with a guy on the other side of him who is good enough to take some of the coverage away from him and put him in 1-on-1's with #2 CBs.

 

I hope they only ever throw to him when he has seperation though.

[SpongeWorthy]

Maybe, but this is a positive, if it comes true. With the current WRs on the team, Bennett as the #1 target, Knox as the #2, and Hester in the slot is the best case scenario. I still hope they sign a WR that can play inside or outside.

 

I have a really hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

 

He put up 50+ catches and 900 yards in his 2nd year, as a 5th round pick, out of Abilene Christian....first as a starter. His numbers last year were pretty much in-line with what middle of the pack #2 WRs put up. Of course, he was the #1 target last year, so that's not good. But I think he'd be extremely effective with a guy on the other side of him who is good enough to take some of the coverage away from him and put him in 1-on-1's with #2 CBs.

 

And that #1 guy ain't Earl Bennett.

[jersey cubs fan]

Maybe, but this is a positive, if it comes true. With the current WRs on the team, Bennett as the #1 target, Knox as the #2, and Hester in the slot is the best case scenario. I still hope they sign a WR that can play inside or outside.

 

I have a really hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

 

He put up 50+ catches and 900 yards in his 2nd year, as a 5th round pick, out of Abilene Christian....first as a starter. His numbers last year were pretty much in-line with what middle of the pack #2 WRs put up. Of course, he was the #1 target last year, so that's not good. But I think he'd be extremely effective with a guy on the other side of him who is good enough to take some of the coverage away from him and put him in 1-on-1's with #2 CBs.

 

I guess I'd be okay with him as a 2 if they had a legit #1, but with a lower level #1 around he's really not somebody defenses have to worry much about.

[rawaction]

Maybe, but this is a positive, if it comes true. With the current WRs on the team, Bennett as the #1 target, Knox as the #2, and Hester in the slot is the best case scenario. I still hope they sign a WR that can play inside or outside.

 

I have a really hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

 

He put up 50+ catches and 900 yards in his 2nd year, as a 5th round pick, out of Abilene Christian....first as a starter. His numbers last year were pretty much in-line with what middle of the pack #2 WRs put up. Of course, he was the #1 target last year, so that's not good. But I think he'd be extremely effective with a guy on the other side of him who is good enough to take some of the coverage away from him and put him in 1-on-1's with #2 CBs.

 

I guess I'd be okay with him as a 2 if they had a legit #1, but with a lower level #1 around he's really not somebody defenses have to worry much about.

 

Well, that's an entirely different issue, which I clearly pointed out in the original post that a #1 is needed and Knox is needed to be slid down the depth chart.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, that's an entirely different issue, which I clearly pointed out in the original post that a #1 is needed and Knox is needed to be slid down the depth chart.

 

I'm not sure what makes that an entirely different issue. I have a tough time seeing Knox as a #2. If they had Andre Johnson I wouldn't worry about it. But they don't, so I have a hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

[rawaction]

Well, that's an entirely different issue, which I clearly pointed out in the original post that a #1 is needed and Knox is needed to be slid down the depth chart.

 

I'm not sure what makes that an entirely different issue. I have a tough time seeing Knox as a #2. If they had Andre Johnson I wouldn't worry about it. But they don't, so I have a hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

 

You lost me. Do you have a hard time seeing Knox as a #2 on this team? A hypothetical team? In the general sense? Because he's a legit #2 WR today.

[cubweiser03]

I love me some Earl Bennett in the slot(dude did bring it late in the year). Nice to read this stuff from Martz, he is great at using slot receivers....Olsen can get some mismatches over the middle too. I think the Bears are REALLY solid in that portion of the passing game. Its the WRs like a Holmes on the outside that this wr corps lacks.

[Banedon]

Well, that's an entirely different issue, which I clearly pointed out in the original post that a #1 is needed and Knox is needed to be slid down the depth chart.

 

I'm not sure what makes that an entirely different issue. I have a tough time seeing Knox as a #2. If they had Andre Johnson I wouldn't worry about it. But they don't, so I have a hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

 

You lost me. Do you have a hard time seeing Knox as a #2 on this team? A hypothetical team? In the general sense? Because he's a legit #2 WR today.

 

Him being the 2nd best option that the Bears have doesn't making him a legit #2. Do you believe the Bears have a legit #1?

[rawaction]

Well, that's an entirely different issue, which I clearly pointed out in the original post that a #1 is needed and Knox is needed to be slid down the depth chart.

 

I'm not sure what makes that an entirely different issue. I have a tough time seeing Knox as a #2. If they had Andre Johnson I wouldn't worry about it. But they don't, so I have a hard time seeing Knox as a #2.

 

You lost me. Do you have a hard time seeing Knox as a #2 on this team? A hypothetical team? In the general sense? Because he's a legit #2 WR today.

 

Him being the 2nd best option that the Bears have doesn't making him a legit #2. Do you believe the Bears have a legit #1?

 

No, the Bears clearly don't have a legit #1. But Knox putting up 51 catches for 900+ yards makes him a legit #2, especially considering it was his 2nd season (1st in a new offense). Not too many 2's with a legit #1 putting up better. I know he was the #1 last year, but there's no reason to think that would go down significantly with a legit 1 brought in.

[jersey cubs fan]

No, the Bears clearly don't have a legit #1. But Knox putting up 51 catches for 900+ yards makes him a legit #2, especially considering it was his 2nd season (1st in a new offense). Not too many 2's with a legit #1 putting up better. I know he was the #1 last year, but there's no reason to think that would go down significantly with a legit 1 brought in.

 

I absolutely think it would go down with a legit #1. The only reason he was targeted so much was because he was practically the only option. Or more accurately there really wasn't a better option.

[rawaction]

No, the Bears clearly don't have a legit #1. But Knox putting up 51 catches for 900+ yards makes him a legit #2, especially considering it was his 2nd season (1st in a new offense). Not too many 2's with a legit #1 putting up better. I know he was the #1 last year, but there's no reason to think that would go down significantly with a legit 1 brought in.

 

I absolutely think it would go down with a legit #1. The only reason he was targeted so much was because he was practically the only option. Or more accurately there really wasn't a better option.

 

Yes, but he was only targeted 100 times. Forte, Olsen, Hester, and Bennett were all targeted over 70 times. The legit #1s are targeted well over 125 times. And with an elite talent on the other side of him, even with fewer targets Knox could put up similar numbers because he won't be facing the team's #1 CB anymore. He won't have the safety rolling over the top to stop him from going deep if there's a legit threat on the other side.

 

What I'd like to see is a legit #1 targeted 125 times. Knox's targets taken back to about 75-80. Bennett's targets in the slot remaining at 70-75. Forte and Olsen taken down to about 50-60 each (less need to use them with legit threat on outside). Hester as the #4 WR targeted about 40 times. And that still leaves 45 throws (based on last year's numbers) to backup TEs, RBs, 5th WR who comes in due to injury, etc. With 75-80 targets, Knox's numbers shouldn't suffer much, because they would presumably be higher percentage throws due to matchups, etc.

[Banedon]

Don't hold your breath on Burress to the Bears:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/cbsports-bears-unlikely-to-renewe-their-interest-in-burress-20110606,0,7502325.story

[SpongeWorthy]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/39297/power-rankings-top-10-toughest-venues

 

Hey UMFan, I need a blow by blow analysis on the validity of these power rankings.

[Flames24Rulz]

lol at Lambeau being the toughest place to play. It's 2011, not 1998. I'd probably have Lambeau as the third toughest place to play in the NFC North.

[SpongeWorthy]

I'm more concerned with whether Soldier Field's 5th place ranking undermines Chicagoans sense of civic pride or bolsters it.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't get Soldier Field as being tough. It's a bad field, but tough place to play? Only for finesse dome teams like New Orleans at the right time of year. New England and Green Bay were able to go in late last year and handle it fine. Look what Arizona did there a couple years ago.

[SpongeWorthy]

The question is would a low ranking be enough to destroy the goodwill and overall buzz that was generated when it was revealed that Al Qaeda wanted to blow up the city?

[jersey cubs fan]

not really sure what your agenda is here

[UMFan83]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/39297/power-rankings-top-10-toughest-venues

 

Hey UMFan, I need a blow by blow analysis on the validity of these power rankings.

 

umm...its quite valid?

[Flames24Rulz]

I don't get Soldier Field as being tough. It's a bad field, but tough place to play? Only for finesse dome teams like New Orleans at the right time of year. New England and Green Bay were able to go in late last year and handle it fine. Look what Arizona did there a couple years ago.

 

I think the bad field is a huge part as to why it's a tough place to play. The Bears record late in the season at home has always been one of their stronger suits, right?

 

Wasn't the Arizona game an unseasonably warm day as well?

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't get Soldier Field as being tough. It's a bad field, but tough place to play? Only for finesse dome teams like New Orleans at the right time of year. New England and Green Bay were able to go in late last year and handle it fine. Look what Arizona did there a couple years ago.

 

I think the bad field is a huge part as to why it's a tough place to play. The Bears record late in the season at home has always been one of their stronger suits, right?

 

Wasn't the Arizona game an unseasonably warm day as well?

 

In theory the Bears do well at home late in the year, but I'm not sure it's been true. The Arizona game was warm, but they play a few nice weather games every year. Do those not count?