Bears' revamped receiving corps ranked 14th in NFL

docc · Tue May 29, 2018 10:02 pm

Bryan Perez
NBC Sports Chicago•May 29, 2018, 6:37 PM

Chicago Bears general manager Ryan Pace made revamping the team's receivers his top offseason priority. He accomplished his goal.

From big-ticket wideout Allen Robinson to Trey Burton, the athletic tight end on the cusp of a breakout, Pace surrounded second-year quarterback Mitch Trubisky with the kind of weapons needed to develop into more than just a dink-and-dunk passer. The Bears offense is ready to compete with some of the best in the NFC.

Pace's efforts haven't gone unnoticed. The Bears' overhauled pass-catchers were recently ranked in the NFL's top 15.

The Bears had the league's worst passing offense in 2017 (175.7 yards per game) and its worst receiving corps. That won't be the case this season. Robinson has legitimate No. 1-receiver talent, and Gabriel is one of the better small slot receivers in the NFL. Burton and Adam Shaheen are going to make things difficult for opposing defenses against two-tight-end sets.

Chicago might even end up with one of the league's top passing offenses if Kevin White can manage to stay healthy and figure out the pro game. Since being drafted seventh overall in 2015, White has appeared in just appeared in just five games and produced a mere 193 receiving yards.

It's astonishing how much the perception of the Bears' offense has changed in less than three months. There's a lot of pressure on Trubisky to succeed now that transaction season is over.

Pace went all-in on Trubisky when he traded into the second overall pick of the 2017 NFL Draft to select him. He doubled down on that investment this offseason by giving Trubisky all the help any young quarterback could possibly ask for. It looks great on paper, but games are won on the field. We'll find out soon enough whether the Bears can turn a great offseason into a playoff run this fall.

Mikefive · Wed May 30, 2018 9:05 am

That's pretty fair. One thing they should've said was that with all the new pieces parts, we could struggle some offensively at first and then gel later. That's what I expect. Injuries could also also be a big factor.

Richie · Wed May 30, 2018 10:58 am

Mikefive wrote:That's pretty fair. One thing they should've said was that with all the new pieces parts, we could struggle some offensively at first and then gel later. That's what I expect. Injuries could also also be a big factor.

I've heard this narrative and I don't know that I agree with it. Maybe I'm wrong... However, it seems to me that new offense's under a new staff (especially under a first time HC) often click early on and then go through their growing pains AFTER the league has caught up to their tendencies a bit and adjust. No?

It would additionally make us a candidate for this, seeing as we also have a QB who is largely unknown. As we see all of the time, a lot of young QB's jump out to really fast/promising starts in their careers. Then, hit that big speed bump in year #2 or #3.

I think we start fast, create unrealistic expectations and then hit a couple bumps mid/late season.

46Blitz · Wed May 30, 2018 7:25 pm

Or.....

We may see the team steadily progress each game and get better as they get to a playoff push.

The Marshall Plan · Thu May 31, 2018 5:18 am

Whatever the ranking is I don't believe it has validity because of all the change surrounding the team. HC, OC, QB year 2, and pretty much the whole receiving corps turned over. They shouldn't do one of those click bait ranking things about this team yet. Then again its not about being objective its about driving website traffic.

I think the potential is outstanding, but you never know. It all depends on how quickly the new system is applied to results on the field and if they signed the right personnel.

Moriarty · Thu May 31, 2018 8:14 am

The Marshall Plan wrote:Whatever the ranking is I don't believe it has validity because of all the change surrounding the team. HC, OC, QB year 2, and pretty much the whole receiving corps turned over. They shouldn't do one of those click bait ranking things about this team yet. Then again its not about being objective its about driving website traffic.

Yep.
Every single one of their top 4 WR and top 2 TE falls into not one, but at least two, of the following categories:

New to the Bears
Coming off serious injury
Little to no NFL experience
Being asked to play a much bigger role than they ever have before

What they're going to be is extremely speculative at this point.

Richie · Thu May 31, 2018 1:38 pm

46Blitz wrote:Or.....

We may see the team steadily progress each game and get better as they get to a playoff push.

Fantastic alternative as well

Richie · Thu May 31, 2018 1:39 pm

Moriarty wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:Whatever the ranking is I don't believe it has validity because of all the change surrounding the team. HC, OC, QB year 2, and pretty much the whole receiving corps turned over. They shouldn't do one of those click bait ranking things about this team yet. Then again its not about being objective its about driving website traffic.
Yep.
Every single one of their top 4 WR and top 2 TE falls into not one, but at least two, of the following categories:

New to the Bears
Coming off serious injury
Little to no NFL experience
Being asked to play a much bigger role than they ever have before

What they're going to be is extremely speculative at this point.

Well, the thing about pre-season rankings is that they're all speculative by nature.

There's a lot of question marks. However, purely on paper... 14 ain't too far off one way or the other.

Mikefive · Thu May 31, 2018 1:49 pm

Richie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:Whatever the ranking is I don't believe it has validity because of all the change surrounding the team. HC, OC, QB year 2, and pretty much the whole receiving corps turned over. They shouldn't do one of those click bait ranking things about this team yet. Then again its not about being objective its about driving website traffic.
Yep.
Every single one of their top 4 WR and top 2 TE falls into not one, but at least two, of the following categories:

New to the Bears
Coming off serious injury
Little to no NFL experience
Being asked to play a much bigger role than they ever have before

What they're going to be is extremely speculative at this point.
Well, the thing about pre-season rankings is that they're all speculative by nature.

There's a lot of question marks. However, purely on paper... 14 ain't too far off one way or the other.

On paper? How about in somebody's offseason imagination. LOL

Richie · Thu May 31, 2018 8:15 pm

Mikefive wrote:
Richie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:Whatever the ranking is I don't believe it has validity because of all the change surrounding the team. HC, OC, QB year 2, and pretty much the whole receiving corps turned over. They shouldn't do one of those click bait ranking things about this team yet. Then again its not about being objective its about driving website traffic.
Yep.
Every single one of their top 4 WR and top 2 TE falls into not one, but at least two, of the following categories:

New to the Bears
Coming off serious injury
Little to no NFL experience
Being asked to play a much bigger role than they ever have before

What they're going to be is extremely speculative at this point.
Well, the thing about pre-season rankings is that they're all speculative by nature.

There's a lot of question marks. However, purely on paper... 14 ain't too far off one way or the other.
On paper? How about in somebody's offseason imagination. LOL

Isn't that the same exact thing?

Mikefive · Thu May 31, 2018 9:44 pm

Richie wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
Richie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:Whatever the ranking is I don't believe it has validity because of all the change surrounding the team. HC, OC, QB year 2, and pretty much the whole receiving corps turned over. They shouldn't do one of those click bait ranking things about this team yet. Then again its not about being objective its about driving website traffic.
Yep.
Every single one of their top 4 WR and top 2 TE falls into not one, but at least two, of the following categories:

New to the Bears
Coming off serious injury
Little to no NFL experience
Being asked to play a much bigger role than they ever have before

What they're going to be is extremely speculative at this point.
Well, the thing about pre-season rankings is that they're all speculative by nature.

There's a lot of question marks. However, purely on paper... 14 ain't too far off one way or the other.
On paper? How about in somebody's offseason imagination. LOL
Isn't that the same exact thing?

Not quite. "On paper" implies there's some statistics you could print out to justify a judgement. Biscuit doesn't have much on paper. On paper, we don't have anything at the TE position outside of projected improvements. Allen Robinson--who I pulled hard for us to get--has one year of solid paper 3 years ago. Taylor Gabriel on paper? Not much. And the list goes on. Other than Jordan Howard, there's nothing on this offense other than projections. Of course, there's some rationale for the projections. But that's all they are.

Richie · Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:38 am

Mikefive wrote:
Richie wrote:
Mikefive wrote:
Richie wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
The Marshall Plan wrote:Whatever the ranking is I don't believe it has validity because of all the change surrounding the team. HC, OC, QB year 2, and pretty much the whole receiving corps turned over. They shouldn't do one of those click bait ranking things about this team yet. Then again its not about being objective its about driving website traffic.
Yep.
Every single one of their top 4 WR and top 2 TE falls into not one, but at least two, of the following categories:

New to the Bears
Coming off serious injury
Little to no NFL experience
Being asked to play a much bigger role than they ever have before

What they're going to be is extremely speculative at this point.
Well, the thing about pre-season rankings is that they're all speculative by nature.

There's a lot of question marks. However, purely on paper... 14 ain't too far off one way or the other.
On paper? How about in somebody's offseason imagination. LOL
Isn't that the same exact thing?
Not quite. "On paper" implies there's some statistics you could print out to justify a judgement. Biscuit doesn't have much on paper. On paper, we don't have anything at the TE position outside of projected improvements. Allen Robinson--who I pulled hard for us to get--has one year of solid paper 3 years ago. Taylor Gabriel on paper? Not much. And the list goes on. Other than Jordan Howard, there's nothing on this offense other than projections. Of course, there's some rationale for the projections. But that's all they are.

Projections and expectations are paper (IMO) - "Well, they certainly look good on paper"... I've always taken that to mean "what's projected/expected of the players on the roster looks to be good" or "If they follow through on expectations. Things look very good." Sorry, I just disagree on the semantics.

Off-season/pre-season rankings are all "imagination". So, I can't agree with laughing off this year's projections - while simultaneously placing value on yesteryear's stats.

They're both equally speculative tools, used to reach a final conjecture based dart throw.