Bears WR discussion

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 24576
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm

Z Bear wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 4:24 pm The only place the Bears improved offensively this offseason is at fullback where they replaced a gadget slot guy (Cohen) with an actual NFL fullback. QB is probably a wash with Seimian vs Dalton, but every other group has regressed so far. People want to bash Robison for being lazy, but I think most forget he had a bad case of COVID mid season and never seemed to get fully better from it. 2020 Robinson is much more of a threat than Pringle and ESB. Graham may have been pretty worthless outside the red zone, but he literally was the only red zone threat on the roster...that has not been replaced. Patrick is a big improvement over Mustipher, but the RG spot is much worse off now than at seasons end.
I don’t know how to tell you this but Pringle had more TDs than Graham. In fact he had more TDs than any Bear receiver.
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18166
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Lakeview, IL

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 9:17 pm
dplank wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:58 pm I’m very thankful we didn’t pay MVS 10M
Does anybody else find it surprising that the Chiefs let Pringle leave and then subsequently traded Hill? It strikes me that if they were even considering trading Hill and placed any value on Pringle that they would have wanted to keep him around. Instead they've parted ways with both their No 1 and No 3 WRs. It gives me reason to wonder how much upside Pringle might have.
It bothers me a bit, yeah.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN 32 SEASONS
User avatar
thunderspirit
Head Coach
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL

G08 wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 6:30 pm
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 9:17 pm

Does anybody else find it surprising that the Chiefs let Pringle leave and then subsequently traded Hill? It strikes me that if they were even considering trading Hill and placed any value on Pringle that they would have wanted to keep him around. Instead they've parted ways with both their No 1 and No 3 WRs. It gives me reason to wonder how much upside Pringle might have.
It bothers me a bit, yeah.
I concluded that was doubling down on Mahomes, figuring he can make any rookie (with the corresponding rookie contract and age) work. It's most likely cap management-related.
KFFL refugee.
AZ_Bearfan wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 1:54 pm Poles went to a nice steakhouse, ordered the cheapest thing on the menu and is stuffing the bread rolls in his pockets for later. Poles is basically my mom.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5639
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

1 yr 4M doesn’t scream “cap related move” to me. My expectations are limited.
User avatar
Atkins&Rebel
MVP
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:56 pm

G08 wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 6:30 pm
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Sat Mar 26, 2022 9:17 pm

Does anybody else find it surprising that the Chiefs let Pringle leave and then subsequently traded Hill? It strikes me that if they were even considering trading Hill and placed any value on Pringle that they would have wanted to keep him around. Instead they've parted ways with both their No 1 and No 3 WRs. It gives me reason to wonder how much upside Pringle might have.
It bothers me a bit, yeah.
Chiefs can't sign much with Mahomes $$$ on the books. They let some of their guy walk in a draft loaded with WR talent in the 1st and 2nd round.
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9845
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

dplank wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 7:50 pm 1 yr 4M doesn’t scream “cap related move” to me. My expectations are limited.
My take is Poles said look I can't give you the dollars and years you're asking for - but I'll guarantee you get the opportunity here to show what you can do with increased targets as one of the team's featured guys. Then show me you can produce similarly on a team not QB'd by Patrick and you'll get your extension.

Pringle bet on himself, and trusts he won't be lied to by Poles in terms of opportunity.

There was zero notion of Hill being traded when they let Pringle walk. That's a timeline challenged notion. Adams re-set the market after Pringle was long gone, and Cheetah ramped his ask.
"My coaches love my ability to run through the smoke" - Vay Jones
User avatar
Grizzled
Head Coach
Posts: 2192
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm

The Texans supposedly want to move on from Brandin Cooks. He's 29 and hasn't had a history of injuries unlike Will Fuller. His 2022 hit would be $8M. Definitely a downfield threat. The Texans were asking for a 2nd but no one's going to give them that. Maybe they'd do a deal for a late round conditional pick which could be upgraded based on performance. Maybe the Bears could trade Foles ....
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5639
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Grizzled wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 9:21 am The Texans supposedly want to move on from Brandin Cooks. He's 29 and hasn't had a history of injuries unlike Will Fuller. His 2022 hit would be $8M. Definitely a downfield threat. The Texans were asking for a 2nd but no one's going to give them that. Maybe they'd do a deal for a late round conditional pick which could be upgraded based on performance. Maybe the Bears could trade Foles ....
Hard no on a 2nd for Cooks. There's a reason he moves teams so frequently. I don't hate him, he's decent, but also kind of a Mooney type.

I know this will be very unpopular, but for the right price I'd go after Will Fuller. That guy is a ridiculous deep threat, only Tyreke Hill is a better deep threat. Health is the obvious issue, but for a low cost I'd go for it and still draft a WR with a 2nd round pick so we're not 'relying on him' per se. A lot of upside if he plays even 10 games - his skills pair beautifully with Fields.
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 24576
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm

I've been a Fuller fan for a long time. At the right price, absolutely, but you have to realize that you might get him for one game or you might get him for 10.
User avatar
crueltyabc
Head Coach
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas TX

:cry: :cry: :cry: In free agency I see Cooks as a sensible alternative to the top top tier WRs and would be happy with the Bears paying him high-teens to round out the room but I don't think he's special enough to merit a 2nd round pick AND a contract like that. This really seems like wishful thinking by the Texans who might be happy to just hold onto him until they get a compensatory pick down the road.

As for Fuller, I can't imagine the Bears being the highest bidder. A team who is already a contender should be willing to overpay him a little bit to push them over the edge. Maybe the Colts could use him in TY's old role? Or if the Packers clear up space after the draft he'd really help them replace MVS :sick:
xyt in the discord chats
User avatar
Grizzled
Head Coach
Posts: 2192
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm

Fuller is spectacular downfield. But since being drafted, he's played in 52 out of 97 potential games. So would he accept a contract based on expected availability?
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3099
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

dplank wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 10:38 am
Grizzled wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 9:21 am The Texans supposedly want to move on from Brandin Cooks. He's 29 and hasn't had a history of injuries unlike Will Fuller. His 2022 hit would be $8M. Definitely a downfield threat. The Texans were asking for a 2nd but no one's going to give them that. Maybe they'd do a deal for a late round conditional pick which could be upgraded based on performance. Maybe the Bears could trade Foles ....
Hard no on a 2nd for Cooks. There's a reason he moves teams so frequently. I don't hate him, he's decent, but also kind of a Mooney type.

I know this will be very unpopular, but for the right price I'd go after Will Fuller. That guy is a ridiculous deep threat, only Tyreke Hill is a better deep threat. Health is the obvious issue, but for a low cost I'd go for it and still draft a WR with a 2nd round pick so we're not 'relying on him' per se. A lot of upside if he plays even 10 games - his skills pair beautifully with Fields.
Cooks is an excellent WR - He has moved a decent chunk - but Pats gave up 1st + for him, Rams traded a 1st for him. So it's not like he was being given away

He has 6 1000+ Yard seasons - including 1 with Jared Goff and 1 with Davis Mills (as a Rookie)

The Comp I'd put on Cooks is C. Olave in the draft


Fuller is VERY interesting. But the book is the book. When healthy I think he's a Top 10-15 WR in the entire league. When healthy - and that isn't all that often (even in some of the years he'd play 11 games - he'd still be dinged up in a chunk of those )- 2020 he played a legit 11 games (Still not a full boat) but you could see what he can do.

Dplank - I cosign this one - and let me know if you agree or disagree with this sentiment: If you were picking between an injury riddled WR or injury riddled OL (assume both are quite darn good when playing) - I'd go with the injury riddled WR - because I think when/if they go down - it doesn't have the cascading effect of the OL going down
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5639
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Yes I would definitely go with losing WRs over OL
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 24576
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm

This is what I've been trying to say when people are like "Bears need a number 1 WR!"

They already have one...

User avatar
Moriarty
Head Coach
Posts: 3972
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm

Maybe.

Mooney got a massive 140 targets last year, though.
So you wind up with the tough determination of: Did he get all those targets because he's just that open and great? Or did he get all those targets because the other options were so bad/not in synch with the QB?
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona

Quite a bit of both..
User avatar
dave99
Player of the Month
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:14 am
Location: Plano Texas

wab wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 12:07 pm This is what I've been trying to say when people are like "Bears need a number 1 WR!"

They already have one...

From the Athletic this morning:
When Poles watched film of the Bears offense from last season, he didn’t see the connection between Fields and wide receiver Darnell Mooney, at least not to the extent the former regime built it up to be.

“It was off,” he said at the owners’ meetings. “I don’t know if that’s just the way that they had it structured with who was starting and who wasn’t starting. And I had that conversation with him; I had it with Mooney; I had it with Cole (Kmet). And it’s been cool to see (Fields) on social media going down to Atlanta and working with them.”
User avatar
Ditka’s dictaphone
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm

Poor Poles, I sympathise with him having to evaluate Nagy’s offense
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3099
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

dplank wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 3:20 pm
crueltyabc wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 2:14 pm If healthy, Michael Thomas is much better than anyone the Bears have.

I could argue about the Chiefs and Ravens WR lists but ok let's say their WRs are a llittle worse. They also have MVP QBs, pro-bowl TEs, and a million draft picks each to make improvements so you could see why they are where they are.
They also have good OL's and great coaching staff's that have had their systems in place for many years now. The Ravens, for instance, really just need that one deep threat in Hollywood Brown. Andrews is a stud TE and they are the best running team in football. They get it done differently.

I'd be fine with what we have at WR if we had bolstered our OL. But somehow we've managed to go backwards there. Hopefully we strike gold in the draft, or Fields is going to get killed.
Last year the Ravens dealt their Starting Tackle - and then replaced him with a guy they signed AFTER the draft

There is no way you'd be ok with that mindset (see all your posts prior to this years draft)
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3099
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

Moriarty wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 1:13 pm Maybe.

Mooney got a massive 140 targets last year, though.
So you wind up with the tough determination of: Did he get all those targets because he's just that open and great? Or did he get all those targets because the other options were so bad/not in synch with the QB?
I can't think of a worse player for Fields than Allen Robinson. When you watch the tOSU tape from Fields year - you will see WR better than anything the Bears had (*) and wide wide open and you cant double anyone.

Robinson - who still has a good game - is a player who you throw open or you anticipate them being open. If Robinson played at tOSU you would never throw to him because you have guys 5 yards open.

That just wasn't meant to fit with Rookie Fields

(*) Literally there is a fair case to be made that All 3 WR that year have a chance to be the Best WR the Bears have ever had.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5639
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

RichH55 wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 3:35 pm
dplank wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 3:20 pm

They also have good OL's and great coaching staff's that have had their systems in place for many years now. The Ravens, for instance, really just need that one deep threat in Hollywood Brown. Andrews is a stud TE and they are the best running team in football. They get it done differently.

I'd be fine with what we have at WR if we had bolstered our OL. But somehow we've managed to go backwards there. Hopefully we strike gold in the draft, or Fields is going to get killed.
Last year the Ravens dealt their Starting Tackle - and then replaced him with a guy they signed AFTER the draft

There is no way you'd be ok with that mindset (see all your posts prior to this years draft)
Actually......you'd be wrong there. The Ravens have fielded a strong OL for many years now, it's a core strength of their franchise. So the Ravens, unlike the Bears, actually deserve the benefit of doubt when they make moves like that. Ravens fans can rest assured that they won't take their OL personnel lightly, they've shown over a long period how much they value it. And so while I'd be upset about losing a top player like they did, I'd be comforted that they know what the hell they are doing. The Bears deserve no such consideration, not even Saint Poles. Here's hoping he can change that narrative!
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3099
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

dplank wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:58 pm
RichH55 wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 3:35 pm

Last year the Ravens dealt their Starting Tackle - and then replaced him with a guy they signed AFTER the draft

There is no way you'd be ok with that mindset (see all your posts prior to this years draft)
Actually......you'd be wrong there. The Ravens have fielded a strong OL for many years now, it's a core strength of their franchise. So the Ravens, unlike the Bears, actually deserve the benefit of doubt when they make moves like that. Ravens fans can rest assured that they won't take their OL personnel lightly, they've shown over a long period how much they value it. And so while I'd be upset about losing a top player like they did, I'd be comforted that they know what the hell they are doing. The Bears deserve no such consideration, not even Saint Poles. Here's hoping he can change that narrative!
So Jerry Angelo plays into your evaluation of Poles?

This is poor process
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5639
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

I literally don’t even understand your post. This is a specific response to you’re assumption I’d be freaking out as a Ravems fan over that move last year - that’s all. And I’m not looking for a tit for tat here, good night.
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3099
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

dplank wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:04 pm I literally don’t even understand your post. This is a specific response to you’re assumption I’d be freaking out as a Ravems fan over that move last year - that’s all. And I’m not looking for a tit for tat here, good night.
The Ravens thing I was mainly noting your odd time obsession this offseason

But then you made it about Franchises not GMs - which was odd
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5639
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

RichH55 wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:05 pm
dplank wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:04 pm I literally don’t even understand your post. This is a specific response to you’re assumption I’d be freaking out as a Ravems fan over that move last year - that’s all. And I’m not looking for a tit for tat here, good night.
The Ravens thing I was mainly noting your odd time obsession this offseason

But then you made it about Franchises not GMs - which was odd
That’s correct. Poles is a first time GM, he hasn’t earned anything yet and every GM this franchise has hired has sucked at addressing OL since the 80’s - why would I trust they hired the right GM now? Im hopeful but skeptical.

With the Ravens, consistent franchise, longevity at GM, and a track record of fielding a strong OL. I wouldn’t react the same way as a Ravens fan because of that trust.
User avatar
southdakbearfan
Head Coach
Posts: 3453
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Dakota

Year ===Ravens PFF O Line===Bears PFF O line=== Ravens Press%===Bears Press%
2021=======-21===============22================22============24
2020=======16===============20=============== 23============21
2019========2===============25===============16============ 22
2018 =======10===============11===============24============21

I know we all love PFF rankings, which is why I threw in the % of passing plays where the QB received pressure. Anyway, both teams are pretty middle of the road on offensive line stats for passing plays.
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3099
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

dplank wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:10 pm
RichH55 wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 6:05 pm

The Ravens thing I was mainly noting your odd time obsession this offseason

But then you made it about Franchises not GMs - which was odd
That’s correct. Poles is a first time GM, he hasn’t earned anything yet and every GM this franchise has hired has sucked at addressing OL since the 80’s - why would I trust they hired the right GM now? Im hopeful but skeptical.

With the Ravens, consistent franchise, longevity at GM, and a track record of fielding a strong OL. I wouldn’t react the same way as a Ravens fan because of that trust.

Its a different GM than most of their run. - But Im glad there is a double standard and a different calendar. - Its just odd

Look if Simmons is starting - I will owe you quite the apology. When that doesn't happen - then I dont even need you to apologize - just look at the issue AS its happening next time. (Simmons mentions are bad, death analogy over Bates is bad - There is a draft with us in a prime position to draft a quality interior OL at the least - and there are solid Vet options still on the board - not earth shattering mind you - but cmon)

On the flip side comp pick wise - If Poles played it perfectly then Ill owe a mea culpa to the board - We shall see
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5639
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

I've already said, twice, that I'd be absolutely shocked if Simmons is starting and even mildly surprised if he's on our team at all. Did you miss that?
RichH55
Head Coach
Posts: 3099
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

dplank wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 12:46 pm I've already said, twice, that I'd be absolutely shocked if Simmons is starting and even mildly surprised if he's on our team at all. Did you miss that?
Why bring him up then? Thats what I didnt get - you know better than that.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5639
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

I already explained that also, you probably didn’t bother to read it.
Post Reply