Bears WR discussion

[RichH55]

Not as wild as watching placated Bears fans assume the best from a franchise that's been bottom barrel for decades. Aspire to be better.

Also, moving you back to blocked for a while. Let me know when you get back on your meds. I deal with bullies a very particular way, a way that isn't really possible on the internet so instead I have to simply remove them from my view. You can chase someone else around every thread for a while.

Being dumb because you want to be better is still dumb.

Aspire to be Michael not Freddo

[The Cooler King]

We have to give Poles a bit of latitude.
There are some good OT and OG prospects in the draft

That’s where I’m at although admittedly it’s a struggle at times.

Poles was at KC for a long time and they’ve been a consistent winner.

And with 3 day two picks we could easily get a starting tackle.

Define easily cuz... Uh, I don't think so.

I'm not gonna hammer Poles right now. But I absolutely want Simmons off a potential 53 man spot. And it would be very difficult to replicate what the Chiefs did in the draft at OL last year. Recall they overdid it with depth and those two guys rised to the cream of the crop there.

[The Cooler King]

Also, in regsrds to Simmons, he could of course improve or just be out into a better spot (he apparently had little OT prep in the game he was inserted into), but I don't see a ton of reason why Poles would want to trust him going into TC. It's not like he could have a ton of good outside Intel on him. There's no longer coaches there to pull for him. He's a total unknown/nothing at best, and junk at worst. And hopefully his spot in initial depth will reflect that. There is never a shortage of guys to boot if he's the second coming of *insert random PS player who became solid starter*

This offseason bringing dplank and I eye to eye on OL. Wild times.

[IE]

Fair IE, but after watching this movie for nearly 40 years now, my trust factor is zero. And that’s not hysterical or nonsense. I get Poles is new, but the same leadership group brought us our prior failures so I can’t just start with a clean slate. He will have to actually wash the Bears stank off him to earn my trust.

I remember watching Butkus and Buffone play as a kid, so yeah I've seen some crappy Bears seasons and regimes. But it is false that they've sucked the entire time. If you can field an all-time great team (in the conversation) once every 40 years that's better than most clubs can say. In Lovie's time and then again a few times they were really *that* close. Being at that NFCC against the Saints was one of my best Bear memories. I mean, losing to probably the best QB of all time in the superbowl isn't fun but you can't call it a fail. And then again in the NFCC with a healthy Cutler and that team was again in the superbowl. And then again just 3 years ago many think the Bears could have easily got to the superbowl under Fangio's amazing defense (like SF did a few years earlier).

Another key thing and a major contributor to the Bear playoff drought for the past 30 years has not been action or inaction of the Bears org at all - it is simply the luck of the Packers in somehow having back-to-back 15-year HOF QBs. The Vikes have fared slightly better than the Bears in terms of getting to the playoffs - but not much, and the one of the two times they did get a game away from the SB it was with the ex-Pack QB. Ugh...

Anyway, I think you're painting a broad picture that is misleading. We're ALL unhappy that those few opportunities that did come didn't end up with the trophy. Poles and Flus need to win to make us all happy. But the portrait of "you've fooled me for 40 consecutive years and I'm not going to let you make it 41"... just doesn't ring true especially with benefit of a long view.

[RichH55]

Fair IE, but after watching this movie for nearly 40 years now, my trust factor is zero. And that’s not hysterical or nonsense. I get Poles is new, but the same leadership group brought us our prior failures so I can’t just start with a clean slate. He will have to actually wash the Bears stank off him to earn my trust.

I remember watching Butkus and Buffone play as a kid, so yeah I've seen some crappy Bears seasons and regimes. But it is false that they've sucked the entire time. If you can field an all-time great team (in the conversation) once every 40 years that's better than most clubs can say. In Lovie's time and then again a few times they were really *that* close. Being at that NFCC against the Saints was one of my best Bear memories. I mean, losing to probably the best QB of all time in the superbowl isn't fun but you can't call it a fail. And then again in the NFCC with a healthy Cutler and that team was again in the superbowl. And then again just 3 years ago many think the Bears could have easily got to the superbowl under Fangio's amazing defense (like SF did a few years earlier).

Another key thing and a major contributor to the Bear playoff drought for the past 30 years has not been action or inaction of the Bears org at all - it is simply the luck of the Packers in somehow having back-to-back 15-year HOF QBs. The Vikes have fared slightly better than the Bears in terms of getting to the playoffs - but not much, and the one of the two times they did get a game away from the SB it was with the ex-Pack QB. Ugh...

Anyway, I think you're painting a broad picture that is misleading. We're ALL unhappy that those few opportunities that did come didn't end up with the trophy. Poles and Flus need to win to make us all happy. But the portrait of "you've fooled me for 40 consecutive years and I'm not going to let you make it 41"... just doesn't ring true especially with benefit of a long view.

Yeah - its weird to hold anything Mark Hatley did against Poles.

Mark Hatley -ummmmm - isn't walking through that door

[dplank]

We have been decent here and there, but since the 80s we’ve been a bad franchise overall and the Packers have absolutely owned us. My skepticism is well placed. Time will tell if Poles can buck the trend. I won’t call for his firing, nor will I crown his ass, any earlier than 3 full seasons on the job. In the meantime I’ll call it like I see it.

[The Marshall Plan]

Fair IE, but after watching this movie for nearly 40 years now, my trust factor is zero. And that’s not hysterical or nonsense. I get Poles is new, but the same leadership group brought us our prior failures so I can’t just start with a clean slate. He will have to actually wash the Bears stank off him to earn my trust.

I remember watching Butkus and Buffone play as a kid, so yeah I've seen some crappy Bears seasons and regimes. But it is false that they've sucked the entire time. If you can field an all-time great team (in the conversation) once every 40 years that's better than most clubs can say. In Lovie's time and then again a few times they were really *that* close. Being at that NFCC against the Saints was one of my best Bear memories. I mean, losing to probably the best QB of all time in the superbowl isn't fun but you can't call it a fail. And then again in the NFCC with a healthy Cutler and that team was again in the superbowl. And then again just 3 years ago many think the Bears could have easily got to the superbowl under Fangio's amazing defense (like SF did a few years earlier).

Another key thing and a major contributor to the Bear playoff drought for the past 30 years has not been action or inaction of the Bears org at all - it is simply the luck of the Packers in somehow having back-to-back 15-year HOF QBs. The Vikes have fared slightly better than the Bears in terms of getting to the playoffs - but not much, and the one of the two times they did get a game away from the SB it was with the ex-Pack QB. Ugh...

Anyway, I think you're painting a broad picture that is misleading. We're ALL unhappy that those few opportunities that did come didn't end up with the trophy. Poles and Flus need to win to make us all happy. But the portrait of "you've fooled me for 40 consecutive years and I'm not going to let you make it 41"... just doesn't ring true especially with benefit of a long view.

Could you please quote anybody here that is looking for "an all-time great team" constantly from this franchise or is content with just 1985? FFS. 1985.

This is where your argument falls apart and you just have your head up your ass being a smart mouth to anybody that is passionate about making this team a consistent contendor.

And now you just sound like Chet From Oak Park reminiscing about 1985. It was FORTY FUCKING YEARS AGO! LIVE IN THE NOW!

You should know damn well, then again maybe you don't, that there's A LOT more to the losing than just crying a river that the Packers had Favre and Rodgers.

I'm not going to sit here and list them for you, I shouldn't have to, but busted HC hire after busted hire. Bad draft pick after draft pick. Not pulling the trigger when generational players dropped in the draft like Rodgers and Moss.

Again, why in the fuck should this have to be explained and justified to you?

Bears fan want to have a consistent winner. What a shocking concept. A sports fan want his team to do better.

You must be surprised by the sunrise every morning too.

[IE]

I remember watching Butkus and Buffone play as a kid, so yeah I've seen some crappy Bears seasons and regimes. But it is false that they've sucked the entire time. If you can field an all-time great team (in the conversation) once every 40 years that's better than most clubs can say. In Lovie's time and then again a few times they were really *that* close. Being at that NFCC against the Saints was one of my best Bear memories. I mean, losing to probably the best QB of all time in the superbowl isn't fun but you can't call it a fail. And then again in the NFCC with a healthy Cutler and that team was again in the superbowl. And then again just 3 years ago many think the Bears could have easily got to the superbowl under Fangio's amazing defense (like SF did a few years earlier).

Another key thing and a major contributor to the Bear playoff drought for the past 30 years has not been action or inaction of the Bears org at all - it is simply the luck of the Packers in somehow having back-to-back 15-year HOF QBs. The Vikes have fared slightly better than the Bears in terms of getting to the playoffs - but not much, and the one of the two times they did get a game away from the SB it was with the ex-Pack QB. Ugh...

Anyway, I think you're painting a broad picture that is misleading. We're ALL unhappy that those few opportunities that did come didn't end up with the trophy. Poles and Flus need to win to make us all happy. But the portrait of "you've fooled me for 40 consecutive years and I'm not going to let you make it 41"... just doesn't ring true especially with benefit of a long view.

Could you please quote anybody here that is looking for "an all-time great team" constantly from this franchise or is content with just 1985? FFS. 1985.

This is where your argument falls apart and you just have your head up your ass being a smart mouth to anybody that is passionate about making this team a consistent contendor.

And now you just sound like Chet From Oak Park reminiscing about 1985. It was FORTY FUCKING YEARS AGO! LIVE IN THE NOW!

You should know damn well, then again maybe you don't, that there's A LOT more to the losing than just crying a river that the Packers had Favre and Rodgers.

I'm not going to sit here and list them for you, I shouldn't have to, but busted HC hire after busted hire. Bad draft pick after draft pick. Not pulling the trigger when generational players dropped in the draft like Rodgers and Moss.

Again, why in the fuck should this have to be explained and justified to you?

Bears fan want to have a consistent winner. What a shocking concept. A sports fan want his team to do better.

You must be surprised by the sunrise every morning too.

I said pretty clearly that going back to '85 is a false premise. I was actually AT the NFCC win in '06 and watched my team in the Superbowl. Dreaming?
I was actually AT the NFCC when Cutler was hurt- a healthy QB away from another superbowl berth within 5 years, but luck wasn't on our side. Owners fault, huh?

OK that was 10 years ago and most of that 10 years was a failed rebuilding effort under a young GM that made too many screwups to earn another shot. The pain was extended there a bit by the GM's decision to bring in a DC that could make a team competitive all on his own & gave too much air cover to a bad coach by looking like a real contender on defense alone. So the GM's good decision unfortunately caused a bad one to persist a few years too long.

I expect my team to be a real competitor more than once every 10-15 years of course. I'm excited & optimistic that Poles/Flus could be the ones to compete more often (consistently). But to pretend that there's been 40 years of nothing is totally false. Why should I have to explain ACTUAL history to anyone?

IMO the delusion is internet fans thinking they can generally manage a team better than in demand and highly thought of NFL executives. Nope.

[dplank]

Yea man, I can’t really understand the “satisfied Bears fan” lol. We’ve been a shit franchise for decades, while our chief rival has been on an epic run.

I’ll say this though, Poles method is the style that I think can yield a consistent winning franchise. It’s painful to watch right now but I believe what he’s doing is smart long term. Now, because I’ve had the gall to criticize a few early mistakes that means, in internet language, that I hate Poles and I’m impatient. Wrong of course, but internet.

I’m fine with a rebuild. I’m fine with having a shit season if that happens. I’m fine purging the old guys and not paying top dollar free agents while we reset our roster and our cap. The only thing I’m not fine with is losing sight of Fields safety and development during this process, which is the criticism I have levied against Poles. I do not believe we can just “throw away” his second year of development by putting him behind a shit OL and having 3 blind mice to throw to. And I don’t believe counting on multiple Rd2 rookies to solve that is wise at all, given the consequences if wrong. And I don’t believe we will be able to spend all our lucious cap space next year anyways, because Supply/Demand - so I wanted us to “spend ahead” just for 1 OL or 1 WR, to help Fields in his critical year 2. Crazy stuff, I know.

[The Marshall Plan]

Could you please quote anybody here that is looking for "an all-time great team" constantly from this franchise or is content with just 1985? FFS. 1985.

This is where your argument falls apart and you just have your head up your ass being a smart mouth to anybody that is passionate about making this team a consistent contendor.

And now you just sound like Chet From Oak Park reminiscing about 1985. It was FORTY FUCKING YEARS AGO! LIVE IN THE NOW!

You should know damn well, then again maybe you don't, that there's A LOT more to the losing than just crying a river that the Packers had Favre and Rodgers.

I'm not going to sit here and list them for you, I shouldn't have to, but busted HC hire after busted hire. Bad draft pick after draft pick. Not pulling the trigger when generational players dropped in the draft like Rodgers and Moss.

Again, why in the fuck should this have to be explained and justified to you?

Bears fan want to have a consistent winner. What a shocking concept. A sports fan want his team to do better.

You must be surprised by the sunrise every morning too.

I said pretty clearly that going back to '85 is a false premise. I was actually AT the NFCC win in '06 and watched my team in the Superbowl. Dreaming?
I was actually AT the NFCC when Cutler was hurt- a healthy QB away from another superbowl berth within 5 years, but luck wasn't on our side. Owners fault, huh?

OK that was 10 years ago and most of that 10 years was a failed rebuilding effort under a young GM that made too many screwups to earn another shot. The pain was extended there a bit by the GM's decision to bring in a DC that could make a team competitive all on his own & gave too much air cover to a bad coach by looking like a real contender on defense alone. So the GM's good decision unfortunately caused a bad one to persist a few years too long.

I expect my team to be a real competitor more than once every 10-15 years of course. I'm excited & optimistic that Poles/Flus could be the ones to compete more often (consistently). But to pretend that there's been 40 years of nothing is totally false. Why should I have to explain ACTUAL history to anyone?

IMO the delusion is internet fans thinking they can generally manage a team better than in demand and highly thought of NFL executives. Nope.

Literally no ones about I WAS THERE MAN. This isn't a discussion about Vietnam.

Do I need to go through and list all of the other years when we were a shit ton more than a Cutler injury away from anything?

How about the entire 1990s? The Dick Jauron Era? Half of the 2000s and pretty much every year since 2006 with the exception of 2018?

As far as that "delusion" of internet fans trying to manage a team better or thinking they're smarter than the front office of their favorite team? That's like every passionate sports fan ever. That's why people talk about sports.

Every fan in the NFL, maybe except for the Chiefs, Patriots, Bills and Bucs, thinks their GM is a dumbass. And even then you could probably find some people who root for those teams who aren't satisfied with having Mahomes, or Brady or Allen or a 20 year dynasty and get on the internet and bitch.

It's what sports fans do.

This team has treated me like shit for the better part of 35 years. I still have no fucking clue why I take it. I did make a declaration that if Fields busts out (he won't) then I'm done.

Somebody cuts me off in traffic and I give him the finger and call his mother a whore. That's how I roll. But then for 35 years this team has shit in my mouth like The Human Centipede and I sit back, laugh, cry, get angry, throw Diet Cokes around the house (that has since stopped after I had a kid).

The word "fan" I believe is short for "fanatic". That's the whole fucking point. You're defying any and all human logic by emotionally attaching yourself to a sports team that quite frankly probably doesn't even like you. It's fucked up. It's also what makes humans fun.

[IE]

I'm not sure the concept of being "emotional" is as much of a fit for me as it is for others about now. I see what they're doing. I'm calm & optimistic.

But I digress.

[IE]

Maybe fitting in this discussion is the Bears' upgrade at WR coach. Tyke has had a long and successful career as a WR coach, and some think HC is in his future. He has a ring, and a record of developing players and coaching good units. He interviewed to be Vikes OC and the story is the Gints wanted to keep him but the Bears lured him away (with the additional role of Pass Game Coordinator?).

I just learned recently that Mike Furrey was McNagy's roommate in the Arena league. So there is a *slight* difference in the pedigree of the new Bears WR coach vs the previous.

Given the Bears' situation with more developmental WRs than proven entities, the experience and the environment they're coming into now seems likely to matter a lot. There's no overpaid primadonna but there is playmaking talent and speed and some size. These guys are all going to be prove-it, shoulder chip guys who are going to be coached hard to play hard and consistently in support of JF1. It's all about making him successful, and with his success comes theirs. I'm cautiously optimistic.

[Grizzled]

The recipe for successful round 2/3 WRs?

https://brownswire.usatoday.com/2022/04 ... arsely-api

[Grizzled]

Read this this a.m., how many WRs will be gone by pick 48. It was based on a site which compiles all mocks, which, of course, are somewhat lacking in accuracy. But I can still see guys available at 71 who are interesting:

https://beargoggleson.com/2022/04/16/ch ... ars-wr-48/

[Bearfacts]

One guy who seems to always be overlooked in these mocks and projections is the kid from BSU, Khalil Shakir.

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/khalil-sh ... 0aa1d8e556

He doesn't have the size many teams covet but talk about tools. I just see him as a guy who can come in and make an immediate impact on the offense as a pure football player who can contribute in many different ways. He's the kind of guy I wish we did have two 3rd round picks to spend or possibly a fourth if his size pushes him down a bit. I think he's gonna be a very productive pro.

[crueltyabc]

One guy who seems to always be overlooked in these mocks and projections is the kid from BSU, Khalil Shakir.

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/khalil-sh ... 0aa1d8e556

He doesn't have the size many teams covet but talk about tools. I just see him as a guy who can come in and make an immediate impact on the offense as a pure football player who can contribute in many different ways. He's the kind of guy I wish we did have two 3rd round picks to spend or possibly a fourth if his size pushes him down a bit. I think he's gonna be a very productive pro.

That’s my guy!
Not overlooked on this site at least

[Grizzled]

Just cut by Baltimore, seems like a perfect Poles type of guy:

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/31925/

[Moriarty]

Just cut by Baltimore, seems like a perfect Poles type of guy:

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/31925/

Combine animal and 3rd rounder who was pretty much a bust in Baltimore.


Drafting ain't easy.
And WR is especially tough, I think.

[Arkansasbear]

Just cut by Baltimore, seems like a perfect Poles type of guy:

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/31925/

Combine animal and 3rd rounder who was pretty much a bust in Baltimore.


Drafting ain't easy.
And WR is especially tough, I think.

Catches have gone for 19 to 16 to 1. That's a bit of a concern.

[wab]

Boykin has been a tease dating back to his days at Notre Dame. He's probably one of the most impressive athletes in football, like Terrell Owens impressive, but he's just not been able to connect all the dots.

[dplank]

I suspect there's a character issue of some sort if the Ravens dropped him during his rookie contract - that's pretty unusual for a 3rd round pick and the Ravens are pretty weak at WR. I have nothing to base this on but reading the circumstances, so take it for what's it worth - which is very little.

[Xee]

[Xee]

I suspect there's a character issue of some sort if the Ravens dropped him during his rookie contract - that's pretty unusual for a 3rd round pick and the Ravens are pretty weak at WR. I have nothing to base this on but reading the circumstances, so take it for what's it worth - which is very little.

I popped on over to the Ravens subreddit to see if that's the case and didn't see any of that. The consensus was he did not run good routes, never learned to use his size to his advantage, and because of that ended up being somewhat of a bust.

Maybe he'll have better luck with Mitch.

[The Cooler King]

I suspect there's a character issue of some sort if the Ravens dropped him during his rookie contract - that's pretty unusual for a 3rd round pick and the Ravens are pretty weak at WR. I have nothing to base this on but reading the circumstances, so take it for what's it worth - which is very little.

I popped on over to the Ravens subreddit to see if that's the case and didn't see any of that. The consensus was he did not run good routes, never learned to use his size to his advantage, and because of that ended up being somewhat of a bust.

Maybe he'll have better luck with Mitch.

Also, he hit the Proven Performance Escalators so his cost went up. Obviously had he been producing well, no big deal, but the combo seems perhaps impactful.

[Moriarty]

I popped on over to the Ravens subreddit to see if that's the case and didn't see any of that. The consensus was he did not run good routes, never learned to use his size to his advantage, and because of that ended up being somewhat of a bust.

Maybe he'll have better luck with Mitch.

Also, he hit the Proven Performance Escalators so his cost went up. Obviously had he been producing well, no big deal, but the combo seems perhaps impactful.

Somebody here (you?) pointed out recently that the PPE really shouldn't count against the cap, in part for precisely this reason.

(Also 35% of snaps is a pretty dubious standard to be using. A starting HB like Montgomery who's logging 75% of snaps - yeah, he shouldn't be making minimum. A WR who logged less than 480 yards over 3 years - less than 160 per? That's not a guy who needs a special bonus.)

[The Cooler King]

Also, he hit the Proven Performance Escalators so his cost went up. Obviously had he been producing well, no big deal, but the combo seems perhaps impactful.

Somebody here (you?) pointed out recently that the PPE really shouldn't count against the cap, in part for precisely this reason.

(Also 35% of snaps is a pretty dubious standard to be using. A starting HB like Montgomery who's logging 75% of snaps - yeah, he shouldn't be making minimum. A WR who logged less than 480 yards over 3 years - less than 160 per? That's not a guy who needs a special bonus.)

I don't know if I commented on that here or not. I did comment on Twitter from my cap/burner account though.

But yea, I feel like it should definitely be an automatic bonus program and then not come out of team salary, but still would come out of the revenue share split.

[Bearfacts]

Combine animal and 3rd rounder who was pretty much a bust in Baltimore.


Drafting ain't easy.
And WR is especially tough, I think.

Catches have gone for 19 to 16 to 1. That's a bit of a concern.

Ya' think? LOL

Looks to me like an Anthony Miller v2.0 but with even less production. Baltimore is pretty savvy when it comes to drafting talent and if they've given up on him there has to be a reason. As badly as we may need to add to the WR room I believe we'd be far better off to look for prospects who weren't already someone else's problem and in three seasons couldn't find a way to stick.

[Yogi da Bear]

I popped on over to the Ravens subreddit to see if that's the case and didn't see any of that. The consensus was he did not run good routes, never learned to use his size to his advantage, and because of that ended up being somewhat of a bust.

Maybe he'll have better luck with Mitch.

Also, he hit the Proven Performance Escalators so his cost went up. Obviously had he been producing well, no big deal, but the combo seems perhaps impactful.

Question, does his escalators travel with him? If he became a free agent the Steelers could have signed him for anything, but they signed him off of waivers. Doesn't that mean they have to assume his contract? And if that's true, do they assume the escalators?

[The Cooler King]

Also, he hit the Proven Performance Escalators so his cost went up. Obviously had he been producing well, no big deal, but the combo seems perhaps impactful.

Question, does his escalators travel with him? If he became a free agent the Steelers could have signed him for anything, but they signed him off of waivers. Doesn't that mean they have to assume his contract? And if that's true, do they assume the escalators?

Yea, since he was claimed on waivers it should travel with him. Steelers have quite a bit more cap flexibility than Ravens so I guess they feel the extra 1M+ is worth the risk/reward.

[Rusty Trombagent]

i'm trading next year's first for deebo and giving him a monster frontloaded contract, then i'm struggling to act normal with the giant erection i've got from a deebo/mooney combo, that is lasting much longer than 4 hours.

all this recent talk about deebo and the 9ers being on the outs is giving my bored offseason brain fits.