Ok guys lets see is there a Colston coming in this year, i think read the Siants drafted a WR later in the draft that many guys thought could be better than Colston
This is a good question for Dave. He has a lot of in-depth knowledge on the lower round draft choices.
A Marques Colston-type player is very unusual to see -- particularly at the WR position. That position usually takes more time to develop. Colston was a late round pick from Hofstra who paid immediate dividends. My guess is that you won't see anyone like that for awhile, but I certainly could be wrong.
I'm inclined to agree with Jets. There's a reason why Colston was so talked about. He is an exception to a very standard rule. WRs take around 3 years to fully develop. That's one reason I don't fault teams for not taking WRs in the draft (but I do expect them to bring in veteran talent if they don't).
If there is one this year, it would have been Marcus Monk, but he's in Chicago and Rex would make it hard for a veteran to perform the way Colston did his rookie year...so I can't see him doing great things for Monk.
I think it's a better choice for Chicago than Grossman to be honest. Orton won a lot of games as a starter for them, but he wasn't real spectacular in many. I think that was his rookie year or the year after his rookie season so he still had a lot of maturing to do. He could surpise people this year.
Now, I don't expect him to have a lot of fantasy relavents, but he could manage the game for the Bears and keep things moving. Grossman is probably the better fantasy QB because when he has good games, he has great games, but he's just too inconsistent.
I personally don't like either QB. Orton is a game manager, but isn't impressive to me at all. When the Bears' D was more dominant, he could win games by not screwing up too much. However, he was far from impressive in those wins -- he never really made any plays. Now, I don't believe the Bears' D is nearly as dominant. I think no matter who the Bears' QB is, this team is a cellar dweller in 2008.
Plus, Orton or Grossman won't have many/any weapons on offensive. This just looks to me like a horrible offense in general.
I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON ORTON.. BUT THE BEARS HAVE LOSTED MANY PLAYERS SINCE ORTON DID THAT,TJ BERNIAN, plus there O-Line is older, IMO the Bears Offense is just a mess no matter who is at QB??
Just to clarify, I'm not saying I'm sold on Orton, I'm only saying he's the better choice for the Bears. I'm not saying he'll do great or good or they'll do well this year. He's the lesser of two evils that has an outside chance to surprise.
If I were him, I'd start throwing passes to Monk as often as I could. He has the best upside of any WR on this team. Booker's a good security blanket type guy and Lloyd has a lot of ability, but he doesn't seem to have the brains to put it all together. Monk, being a 7th round rookie, only has a very small chance to make an impact, but it is there.
As far as the Bears offense in general, it's really not as bad as it appears. They have two good TEs (Olsen's a former first rounder who flashed a lot of ability last year), they drafted a LT in the first round to help the OL, and they've upgraded the RB position in getting Forte. If the OL can come together, They can be a run-first team and Orton has a better chance to manage the game with his TEs and Booker. If Lloyd can return to his form he had in his last year in SF and/or if Monk can make strides, they could be effecient.
Also, they have a playmaker in Hester who is continuing to learn his offensive role. He has blazing speed that has to be respected by DBs. He also has TD potential any time he touches the ball.
No i hear you Big Guy... if i was Orton. I would be looking for a better team.. :) : I Just can't figure out what happened to the Bears.. where they not that good when they went to SB?? Did they get Lucky?? Or is the distance between a SB teams and just a average team.. Just a little bit??
Their defense played a little beyond themselves that year I think. It was one of the most dominant defenses since the 2000 Ravens and Grossman actually played well in many games (and was a good fantasy QB most of the year). They also had Thomas Jones running well and Benson was doing OK too.
If you look at their team, they really weren't anything special on offense at that time overall and they won't be special this year either. The defense is worse so they'll have a hard time winning in this division. I think Orton and the offense can be efficient, but not enough to win a lot of games in reality or fantasy.
I will agree that the Bears have some potential to be OK offensively...but I'm not sold they will realize it in 2008. Monk & Forte are rookies -- haven't proven anything yet. I think Benson is horrible. Booker & Lloyd don't really do it for me. Olsen is good, but I'm don't think he's a superstar. The O-line is average.
When Orton "won" all those games with the Bears, sometimes they just won in spite of him. He inspired so much confidence in his coaching staff, that he got benched again for Grossman. He made less mistakes than Grossman, but that isn't saying much. He also really never made any plays either. The Bears D was just sensational in 2006...as Dave said, I think they played a bit over their heads that season. Plus, the NFC was fairly weak that year. The NFC is stronger now.
I honestly think the Bears will have one of the bottom 3 offenses in the NFL in 2008...we'll just have to wait & see. I see a 4-12 season for Chicago. However, the Crystal Ball has certainly been wrong before.
Now...IF they would use Hester more on Offensive, I believe that really would help immensely...not sure that they will, however...
This is a good question for
This is a good question for Dave. He has a lot of in-depth knowledge on the lower round draft choices.
A Marques Colston-type player is very unusual to see -- particularly at the WR position. That position usually takes more time to develop. Colston was a late round pick from Hofstra who paid immediate dividends. My guess is that you won't see anyone like that for awhile, but I certainly could be wrong.
I'm inclined to agree with
I'm inclined to agree with Jets. There's a reason why Colston was so talked about. He is an exception to a very standard rule. WRs take around 3 years to fully develop. That's one reason I don't fault teams for not taking WRs in the draft (but I do expect them to bring in veteran talent if they don't).
If there is one this year, it would have been Marcus Monk, but he's in Chicago and Rex would make it hard for a veteran to perform the way Colston did his rookie year...so I can't see him doing great things for Monk.
speaking of Chicago, i read
speaking of Chicago, i read that Orton is listed as the #1 QB.. it is a said day for Bears
I think it's a better choice
I think it's a better choice for Chicago than Grossman to be honest. Orton won a lot of games as a starter for them, but he wasn't real spectacular in many. I think that was his rookie year or the year after his rookie season so he still had a lot of maturing to do. He could surpise people this year.
Now, I don't expect him to have a lot of fantasy relavents, but he could manage the game for the Bears and keep things moving. Grossman is probably the better fantasy QB because when he has good games, he has great games, but he's just too inconsistent.
I personally don't like
I personally don't like either QB. Orton is a game manager, but isn't impressive to me at all. When the Bears' D was more dominant, he could win games by not screwing up too much. However, he was far from impressive in those wins -- he never really made any plays. Now, I don't believe the Bears' D is nearly as dominant. I think no matter who the Bears' QB is, this team is a cellar dweller in 2008.
Plus, Orton or Grossman won't have many/any weapons on offensive. This just looks to me like a horrible offense in general.
Then again...I've been surprised before.
I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON
I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON ORTON.. BUT THE BEARS HAVE LOSTED MANY PLAYERS SINCE ORTON DID THAT,TJ BERNIAN, plus there O-Line is older, IMO the Bears Offense is just a mess no matter who is at QB??
thaas & I posted
thaas & I posted simultaneously...and he read my mind!
Nahh. Just found a old
Nahh. Just found a old crystal ball you threw out
Just to clarify, I'm not
Just to clarify, I'm not saying I'm sold on Orton, I'm only saying he's the better choice for the Bears. I'm not saying he'll do great or good or they'll do well this year. He's the lesser of two evils that has an outside chance to surprise.
If I were him, I'd start throwing passes to Monk as often as I could. He has the best upside of any WR on this team. Booker's a good security blanket type guy and Lloyd has a lot of ability, but he doesn't seem to have the brains to put it all together. Monk, being a 7th round rookie, only has a very small chance to make an impact, but it is there.
As far as the Bears offense in general, it's really not as bad as it appears. They have two good TEs (Olsen's a former first rounder who flashed a lot of ability last year), they drafted a LT in the first round to help the OL, and they've upgraded the RB position in getting Forte. If the OL can come together, They can be a run-first team and Orton has a better chance to manage the game with his TEs and Booker. If Lloyd can return to his form he had in his last year in SF and/or if Monk can make strides, they could be effecient.
Also, they have a playmaker in Hester who is continuing to learn his offensive role. He has blazing speed that has to be respected by DBs. He also has TD potential any time he touches the ball.
It could be worse for the Bears.
No i hear you Big Guy...
No i hear you Big Guy... if i was Orton. I would be looking for a better team.. :)
: I Just can't figure out what happened to the Bears.. where they not that good when they went to SB?? Did they get Lucky?? Or is the distance between a SB teams and just a average team.. Just a little bit??
Their defense played a
Their defense played a little beyond themselves that year I think. It was one of the most dominant defenses since the 2000 Ravens and Grossman actually played well in many games (and was a good fantasy QB most of the year). They also had Thomas Jones running well and Benson was doing OK too.
If you look at their team, they really weren't anything special on offense at that time overall and they won't be special this year either. The defense is worse so they'll have a hard time winning in this division. I think Orton and the offense can be efficient, but not enough to win a lot of games in reality or fantasy.
I will agree that the Bears
I will agree that the Bears have some potential to be OK offensively...but I'm not sold they will realize it in 2008. Monk & Forte are rookies -- haven't proven anything yet. I think Benson is horrible. Booker & Lloyd don't really do it for me. Olsen is good, but I'm don't think he's a superstar. The O-line is average.
When Orton "won" all those games with the Bears, sometimes they just won in spite of him. He inspired so much confidence in his coaching staff, that he got benched again for Grossman. He made less mistakes than Grossman, but that isn't saying much. He also really never made any plays either. The Bears D was just sensational in 2006...as Dave said, I think they played a bit over their heads that season. Plus, the NFC was fairly weak that year. The NFC is stronger now.
I honestly think the Bears will have one of the bottom 3 offenses in the NFL in 2008...we'll just have to wait & see. I see a 4-12 season for Chicago. However, the Crystal Ball has certainly been wrong before.
Now...IF they would use Hester more on Offensive, I believe that really would help immensely...not sure that they will, however...
Good stuff.. thanks guys!!
Good stuff.. thanks guys!!