quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

I like the Tomlinson signing but it sure gives the first day or two of this offseason the same flavor as last offseason. (Well, except for the Diggs trade and WR hole)

(Last offseason March moves in parenthesis)

Re-sign Hill (Hill)

Sign solid IDL Tomlinson (Pierce)

Sign LB Vigil (Gates) ...

Let go of TE Rudy (Morgan)

We also re-signed Dozier and Abdullah last offseason. (I assume Boone and another Dozier type shortly)

Eerie.

Hopefully we are just getting started ... last offseason, that was it before the draft.

I am more excited this year Tom. Weatherly Back (which you haven't included). Wonnum, Willekes, Brailford and a way younger defense...also the young CBs will have a year more of experience. I think we will be sitting better on that side of the ball already before the draft. Just need to figure out Safety.

Weatherly is a good catch, I spaced it.

2020 was 7-9. We had good offensive production and the defense is already better on paper, so there's reason to be hopeful.

However, Weatherly and the young players you mentioned do nothing for me in terms of improving on last year. It's possible but right now that is simply hopefulness ... the same as Samia and Udoh the year before, that people in here were touting.

G, DE, S clearly need attention. CB, WR could use some as well. The draft can answer two of those in the first 2 rounds, maybe the third rd if we're lucky.

There's still alot of work to do.

I think that after restructuring Thielen and Smith and after Stephen release a couple of those will fill......I see Ant Harris/Keenan Cole and a OG. I am hoping more of Curtis Samuel then Keenan as the WR prices and safety prices are dropping.

IMO, no reason to go after a No. 3 wide receiver. Irv Smith is going to be your No. 2 or No. 3 receiver next year. I'd be stunned if he didn't finish with 75+ receptions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I think WR3 is the least of our worries. We already have or can plug in a 7th rounder/urfa or can pick one up this year easy enough. No matter who it is they'll be pressed to produce more than 350 yards and 3TD's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

We can do both, depth at WR can be important, and it's good to have a solid #3 when you have an immobile QB.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

We can do both, depth at WR can be important, and it's good to have a solid #3 when you have an immobile QB.

In any good offense in the NFL, the No. 3 wide receiver is the No. 5 option.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

We can do both, depth at WR can be important, and it's good to have a solid #3 when you have an immobile QB.

In any good offense in the NFL, the No. 3 wide receiver is the No. 5 option.

If WR1 or WR2 gets injured, Chad Beebe or his ilk is your WR2. No good offense has that feature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I think WR3 is the least of our worries. We already have or can plug in a 7th rounder/urfa or can pick one up this year easy enough. No matter who it is they'll be pressed to produce more than 350 yards and 3TD's.

Agreed. The only kind of guy I would go after would be a Cole Beasley type of guy that can move the chains on third and five or something like that. Injuries happen in football and wide receivers get hurt a lot. Our depth at the position is a bit of a concern, but I'd rather spend the money helping out the defense a bit to give us a chance to win a few more games. The bulk of the focus this offseason has to be rebuilding the defense and adding an offensive lineman or three.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I think WR3 is the least of our worries. We already have or can plug in a 7th rounder/urfa or can pick one up this year easy enough. No matter who it is they'll be pressed to produce more than 350 yards and 3TD's.

Agreed. The only kind of guy I would go after would be a Cole Beasley type of guy that can move the chains on third and five or something like that. Injuries happen in football and wide receivers get hurt a lot. Our depth at the position is a bit of a concern, but I'd rather spend the money helping out the defense a bit to give us a chance to win a few more games. The bulk of the focus this offseason has to be rebuilding the defense and adding an offensive lineman or three.

Cole Beasley's cap hit is $7.4 million, so you're saying you want to take up most of the remaining room for a WR3?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

We can do both, depth at WR can be important, and it's good to have a solid #3 when you have an immobile QB.

In any good offense in the NFL, the No. 3 wide receiver is the No. 5 option.

If WR1 or WR2 gets injured, Chad Beebe or his ilk is your WR2. No good offense has that feature.

I would really love Curtis Samuel....multiple use guy. Could use him like David Palmer on 3rd downs in some sets---upgrade over abdullah as he plays two spots RB/WR.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

We can do both, depth at WR can be important, and it's good to have a solid #3 when you have an immobile QB.

In any good offense in the NFL, the No. 3 wide receiver is the No. 5 option.

If WR1 or WR2 gets injured, Chad Beebe or his ilk is your WR2. No good offense has that feature.

I would really love Curtis Samuel....multiple use guy. Could use him like David Palmer on 3rd downs in some sets---upgrade over abdullah as he plays two spots RB/WR.

Abdullah has actually grown on me. Seems like Ds don't pay much attention to him, but he is a real weapon when Ds are keying on our main guys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I think WR3 is the least of our worries. We already have or can plug in a 7th rounder/urfa or can pick one up this year easy enough. No matter who it is they'll be pressed to produce more than 350 yards and 3TD's.

Agreed. The only kind of guy I would go after would be a Cole Beasley type of guy that can move the chains on third and five or something like that. Injuries happen in football and wide receivers get hurt a lot. Our depth at the position is a bit of a concern, but I'd rather spend the money helping out the defense a bit to give us a chance to win a few more games. The bulk of the focus this offseason has to be rebuilding the defense and adding an offensive lineman or three.

Cole Beasley's cap hit is $7.4 million, so you're saying you want to take up most of the remaining room for a WR3?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

According to Dan Patrick, Bears offered SEA three 1sts, a third and two starters for Wilson.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

According to Dan Patrick, Bears offered SEA three 1sts, a third and two starters for Wilson.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstinger

We need to improve our WR depth. I wouldn't spend a lot of money on it, but I would spend a draft pick or two.

I'd like to see us get a small quick guy and a big tall guy. Both could be used to produce mismatch problems, which is the name of the game.

Small quick guy could be used for gadget plays like reverses and jet sweeps, while razing havoc from the slot. While researching the a little back when I was doing the mock drafts two guys peaked my interest. Jaelon Darden, ranked #87 by PFF and Tutu Atwell ranked #114. Both are 5'9" and reportedly very quick. If they are drafted somewhere around their ranking we could get Darden with a slight move up from 90 or Atwell with a slight move up from 119. I think either one would be a marked improvement over Bebe.

There are a few tall receivers to look at also. #137 Simi Fehoko from Standford, #144 Nico Collins Michigan are both 6'4". At #203 Warren Jackson from Colorado State and #257 T. J. Vasher from Texas Tech are both 6'6".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

According to Dan Patrick, Bears offered SEA three 1sts, a third and two starters for Wilson.

Seattle is stupid for not taking that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pager

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phil Riewer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Anderson

According to Dan Patrick, Bears offered SEA three 1sts, a third and two starters for Wilson.

Seattle is stupid for not taking that one.

IDK - 20th overall this year. The equivalent to a 2nd next yr and a 3rd the year after. Defense will still be good enough plus Wilson for probably mid to late rounders next year and the year after. If they are high on Darnold, believe he is the QBOTF, and JETS asking price is low then it might be worth it. Also depending on the starters (studs under rookie contracts sure). But if Darnold doesn't become that, then it's not worth it IMO.

I'm not trading away a future hall of famer in his prime under a reasonable contract for just about anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I think WR3 is the least of our worries. We already have or can plug in a 7th rounder/urfa or can pick one up this year easy enough. No matter who it is they'll be pressed to produce more than 350 yards and 3TD's.

Agreed. The only kind of guy I would go after would be a Cole Beasley type of guy that can move the chains on third and five or something like that. Injuries happen in football and wide receivers get hurt a lot. Our depth at the position is a bit of a concern, but I'd rather spend the money helping out the defense a bit to give us a chance to win a few more games. The bulk of the focus this offseason has to be rebuilding the defense and adding an offensive lineman or three.

Cole Beasley's cap hit is $7.4 million, so you're saying you want to take up most of the remaining room for a WR3?

Cole Beasley (TYPE) guy is what I said. I didn't say Cole Beasley.

And like I said earlier, I wouldn't be spending anything in free agency on a wide receiver. With minimal money remaining, we've got other pressing needs ... like not giving up nearly 30 points-per-game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Sykes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: bohumm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad H

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

I think WR3 is the least of our worries. We already have or can plug in a 7th rounder/urfa or can pick one up this year easy enough. No matter who it is they'll be pressed to produce more than 350 yards and 3TD's.

Agreed. The only kind of guy I would go after would be a Cole Beasley type of guy that can move the chains on third and five or something like that. Injuries happen in football and wide receivers get hurt a lot. Our depth at the position is a bit of a concern, but I'd rather spend the money helping out the defense a bit to give us a chance to win a few more games. The bulk of the focus this offseason has to be rebuilding the defense and adding an offensive lineman or three.

Cole Beasley's cap hit is $7.4 million, so you're saying you want to take up most of the remaining room for a WR3?

Cole Beasley (TYPE) guy is what I said. I didn't say Cole Beasley.

And like I said earlier, I wouldn't be spending anything in free agency on a wide receiver. With minimal money remaining, we've got other pressing needs ... like not giving up nearly 30 points-per-game.

Unfortunately, Chad Beebe is our Beasley-Samuel chain mover. He'll get a one yr min. contract which will have no impact on the financial decisions being made. We'll draft a 4-7 rd WR (or two) and sign some undrafted guys with guarantees of Theilen-like careers.

We cannot spend a meaningful dollar at WR. We can target a decent WR and other depth / rotational concerns next offseason because we took care of business this offseason.

I don't know how they will pull it off but G(s), S, DE all need starting caliber players. CB is still a big concern also ... we might have solid players with another season or two of development (might not) but this year will just be ok again unless we add a dependable vet or luck out in the draft.

Improvement over last year gets us to 8-8 or 9-7. There's a ton of work to do to get us better than that (on paper).