PDA

View Full Version : The Bears Do Not Need Jeremy Maclin


Monomach
11-24-2008, 01:23 PM
This thread is addressed to the aspiring mock drafters who come to our humble home to find our needs, since our needs thread doesn't really detail just how horrible Maclin is for the Bears. At least one of every three of you is giving us Jeremy Maclin.

Do not give us Maclin. Give us Michael Johnson, Greg Hardy, Brian Orakpo, Everette Brown, Duke Robinson, Andre Smith, Ciron Black, Michael Oher, Eugene Monroe, George Selvie, or Alex Mack. Hell, even Taylor Mays or William Moore would be a lot better.

If you're dumb and have us winning the super bowl so that none of these are available, have us trade down. Have us reach for Herman Johnson. Have us trade the pick for someone's 1st and 2nd next year. Whatever. Just do not give us Maclin. Or a QB. Don't do that, either.

You see, Jeremy Maclin's clone is in the NFL, and he plays for the Bears. His name is Devin Hester. He can run really fast, catch screens, do end-arounds, and not run routes, too. We do not need to be using first rounders on guys who just run downfield and hope a ball hits them. In fact, if you're giving us a WR in round one at all, it better be because Crabtree had a Brady Quinn-type fall or Kenny Britt ran a 4.2 at the combine.

Thank you and have a nice day giving us an elite pass-rushing DE.

Bears first round needs
1. DE
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. OT or OG
3. WR *must be tall and able to run nfl routes*
4. FS

regoob2
11-24-2008, 01:33 PM
Thank you!!

Gay Ork Wang
11-24-2008, 02:31 PM
god i hate those people who think any WR is good

Borat
11-24-2008, 04:00 PM
Kind of reminds me of a couple of years ago when you guys would get mad at people that gave you Greg Olsen. You didn't need a TE that year either. Weird.

Monomach
11-24-2008, 04:26 PM
Kind of reminds me of a couple of years ago when you guys would get mad at people that gave you Greg Olsen. You didn't need a TE that year either. Weird.

Yes, we did need a TE that year. I don't remember anyone complaining about that. We also DO need a WR this year. Only one of the first round wideouts fits us, though...and Maclin is about the worst fit for us at WR in the entire draft.

Borat
11-24-2008, 04:34 PM
Yes, we did need a TE that year. I don't remember anyone complaining about that. We also DO need a WR this year. Only one of the first round wideouts fits us, though...and Maclin is about the worst fit for us at WR in the entire draft.

Well, you weren't around that year so I guess you wouldn't know. But I'll FYI it for ya: you got a good tongue-lashing if you gave the Bears a TE in a mock. FWIW, I don't disagree with your point about Macklin. I was just pointing out that you guys were adamant about the Bears NOT taking a TE in the first, and you ended up taking Greg Olsen. So making a thread about ruling OUT a WR like Macklin is once again a little rash.

Can you tell I got my fair share of Bear fans pissed at me for giving them Olsen in a mock before? LOL.

Race for the Heisman
11-24-2008, 04:42 PM
Didn't Scott have Zach Miller going to the Bears all year long?

regoob2
11-24-2008, 05:14 PM
Kind of reminds me of a couple of years ago when you guys would get mad at people that gave you Greg Olsen. You didn't need a TE that year either. Weird.
you dont speak about all Bears fan. I was be-headed on here for wanting Olsen. Everyone was riding Joe Staley's jock.

VoteLynnSwan
11-24-2008, 05:17 PM
Well, you weren't around that year so I guess you wouldn't know. But I'll FYI it for ya: you got a good tongue-lashing if you gave the Bears a TE in a mock. FWIW, I don't disagree with your point about Macklin. I was just pointing out that you guys were adamant about the Bears NOT taking a TE in the first, and you ended up taking Greg Olsen. So making a thread about ruling OUT a WR like Macklin is once again a little rash.

Can you tell I got my fair share of Bear fans pissed at me for giving them Olsen in a mock before? LOL.

yea the Bears did end up drafting Greg Olsen... but was that the right pick? hard to say. Greg Olsen is a good player, i personally like him, but if we had gone with a DE, a Safety, WR, or OL, we might be in a better position moving forward than we are now.

if we'd have gone with an Anthony Gonzalez, a Eric Weddle, or Tony Ugoh, or Sidney Rice, we may be in a better position now than we are.

Were we right about not wanting a TE? Possibly. We might be better right now if we'd gone elsewhere with that pick, we might be worse. It's impossible to tell.


Ultimately you're right that you should never act as if anything in the draft is a certainty. However this situation is a little different. Where Greg Olsen was a good pick because it made the offense more dynamic, Jeremy Macklin would add nothing new to the offense.

PACKmanN
11-24-2008, 05:19 PM
strange, you guys complain about having a weak WR crop but you don't want your team to draft one of the top wideouts in the draft.... make up your minds.

Gay Ork Wang
11-24-2008, 05:21 PM
strange, you guys complain about having a weak WR crop but you don't want your team to draft one of the top wideouts in the draft.... make up your minds.
dude, not a guy thats basically all we have.

regoob2
11-24-2008, 05:26 PM
strange, you guys complain about having a weak WR crop but you don't want your team to draft one of the top wideouts in the draft.... make up your minds.
We want a complete WR. Maclin is a deep threat who doesnt run pro routes. He would be a terrible fit and provides little to no added value. I seem him as a best case Hester worst case Troy Williamson.

regoob2
11-24-2008, 05:27 PM
yea the Bears did end up drafting Greg Olsen... but was that the right pick? hard to say. Greg Olsen is a good player, i personally like him, but if we had gone with a DE, a Safety, WR, or OL, we might be in a better position moving forward than we are now.

if we'd have gone with an Anthony Gonzalez, a Eric Weddle, or Tony Ugoh, or Sidney Rice, we may be in a better position now than we are.

Were we right about not wanting a TE? Possibly. We might be better right now if we'd gone elsewhere with that pick, we might be worse. It's impossible to tell.


Ultimately you're right that you should never act as if anything in the draft is a certainty. However this situation is a little different. Where Greg Olsen was a good pick because it made the offense more dynamic, Jeremy Macklin would add nothing new to the offense.
?? How would drafting any of those guys make us better?

VoteLynnSwan
11-24-2008, 06:09 PM
?? How would drafting any of those guys make us better?

well the point wasn't necessarily that they would, but that they might... it's all irrelevant since it didn't happen.

awfullyquiet
11-24-2008, 11:04 PM
Yes, we did need a TE that year. I don't remember anyone complaining about that. We also DO need a WR this year. Only one of the first round wideouts fits us, though...and Maclin is about the worst fit for us at WR in the entire draft.

no. we didn't need a tight end that year.

but we took one anyway.

shady00
11-24-2008, 11:44 PM
I won't hate on the Olsen pick, but I would hate on Maclin. We already have Hester for speed, so if we go WR (which we shouldn't) it should be a tall, possession receiver.

regoob2
11-24-2008, 11:55 PM
no. we didn't need a tight end that year.

but we took one anyway.We needed a receiving option and Olsen was far and away the bpa.

awfullyquiet
11-25-2008, 10:01 AM
We needed a receiving option and Olsen was far and away the bpa.

i know, but to say 'we needed a tight end' is false. we needed a pass catcher. that's true.

shady00
11-25-2008, 04:32 PM
Who do you think the Bears should have drafted over Olsen--who looks really good so far, we just need to use him more--that can make you this upset?

Gay Ork Wang
11-25-2008, 04:34 PM
we shouldve drafted another position maybe. they dont say they dont like olsen but the fact that we didnt really need a TE that much

regoob2
11-25-2008, 04:34 PM
i know, but to say 'we needed a tight end' is false. we needed a pass catcher. that's true.Olsen is a TE so how can that be?

regoob2
11-25-2008, 04:37 PM
we shouldve drafted another position maybe. they dont say they dont like olsen but the fact that we didnt really need a TE that much
Yes we should have. Did you watch the draft, we ran in there and gave Olsen the hat before we were even on the clock.

Menardo75
11-25-2008, 04:37 PM
Who do Bears fans want in the first then?

Gay Ork Wang
11-25-2008, 04:44 PM
any Pass Rusher

Monomach
11-25-2008, 05:04 PM
Who do Bears fans want in the first then?

Did you read only the title of the original post? It had an entire list of players that would be ok.

edit: Oh, screw it. I've gone back and tacked a position list on the end for people who don't even feel like reading about WHY we don't need Maclin. :lol:

Borat
11-25-2008, 05:49 PM
Did you read only the title of the original post? It had an entire list of players that would be ok.

edit: Oh, screw it. I've gone back and tacked a position list on the end for people who don't even feel like reading about WHY we don't need Maclin. :lol:

Ah man, I'm sorry. Didn't mean to spin this thread off into a Greg Olsen debate. I was just pointing out that it's kind of silly to absolutely rule out a player. My bad.

VoteLynnSwan
11-25-2008, 05:59 PM
Yes we should have. Did you watch the draft, we ran in there and gave Olsen the hat before we were even on the clock.

just because we drafted someone doesn't mean we needed that person.

The draft should be about taking the best player available... (at the very least at the top and bottom of the first round, and all rounds after the middle 3rd)... so obviously Jerry Angelo thought Greg Olsen was the best available player. He was probably right, but to say we needed someone because we drafted them is pretty shortsighted.

The Packers picked Aaron Rodgers even though they had NO need for him because he was the best available player, and gave them the most value for the pick.

regoob2
11-25-2008, 06:07 PM
just because we drafted someone doesn't mean we needed that person.

The draft should be about taking the best player available... (at the very least at the top and bottom of the first round, and all rounds after the middle 3rd)... so obviously Jerry Angelo thought Greg Olsen was the best available player. He was probably right, but to say we needed someone because we drafted them is pretty shortsighted.

The Packers picked Aaron Rodgers even though they had NO need for him because he was the best available player, and gave them the most value for the pick.
How did the Packers not need a QB. They thought Favre was gonna retire. We needed a pass catcher. If we took Zach Miller I would agree with you but Olsen is versatile.

Turtlepower
11-25-2008, 06:08 PM
Bears should've draft Joe Flacco. =P

regoob2
11-25-2008, 06:12 PM
Bears should've draft Joe Flacco. =Pummmmmm no.

Turtlepower
11-25-2008, 06:13 PM
ummmmmm no.

Just making a joke as how every mock prior to the draft had the bears taking a QB like Flacco. =P

VoteLynnSwan
11-25-2008, 06:56 PM
How did the Packers not need a QB. They thought Favre was gonna retire. We needed a pass catcher. If we took Zach Miller I would agree with you but Olsen is versatile.

they didn't think Favre was going to retire when they drafted him... they knew he'd be around for at least a couple more years, everyone knew that.

Yes we needed a pass catcher... and yes Greg Olsen was the best available pass catcher... but he hasn't done much more than a later round TE could have done.

Bottom line is that Olsen was not a NEED. He was the best player available, that's whey we took him. I'm happy we did, but TE was not a need that year with the emergence of Desmond Clark, the reason we all thought we wouldn't go TE in the first place.



This argument is irrelevant. Lets focus on this year, and this year we do not need a fast WR who can't run routes like Jeremy Maclin... i think we can all agree that Maclin would not be a good fit for our team.

VoteLynnSwan
11-25-2008, 06:58 PM
ummmmmm no.

well it's not like the guy we did take in the first this year has done anything productive yet (hopefully he will)

dabears10
11-25-2008, 07:44 PM
Okay, Don't give Maclin. If you feel that it needs to be a Wide out, Crabtree and DHB.

Smokey Joe
11-25-2008, 07:50 PM
^^^ exactly. DHB or Crabtree (I doubt we'll be picking in the top 5-10 though)

PACKmanN
11-25-2008, 07:53 PM
any Pass Rusher not name Greg Hardy

fixed it for you :)

Monomach
11-25-2008, 07:58 PM
fixed it for you :)

Why would you say that? :confused:

PACKmanN
11-25-2008, 08:02 PM
Why would you say that? :confused:

because i want him on the Packers....why else would I say that to a divisional team....

Monomach
11-26-2008, 03:18 PM
because i want him on the Packers....why else would I say that to a divisional team....

Finish with a worse record than us and you can have him. ;)

regoob2
11-26-2008, 04:19 PM
Finish with a worse record than us and you can have him. ;)Sounds good to me.

Paranoidmoonduck
11-26-2008, 06:07 PM
I think the perception that Jeremy Maclin doesn't run NFL routes and only knows how to run the 9 route and its variations is just flatly false. The guy lines up so much in the slot in that Missouri offense that he runs way more intermediate routes than someone like Heyward-Bey does and he spends less time doing gimmicky screen work like Crabtree does. More over, he has great body control, great hands, and looks really smooth doing everything Missouri asks him to do.

If you Bears fans don't want Maclin, fine. But he'd be your best receiver immediately. I'm not even sure that my most optomistic predictions for Hester as a receiver would place him in the same stratosphere as a guy like Maclin.

BeerBaron
11-26-2008, 07:56 PM
Yes, lets draft another small speedy project WR with special teams ability.

The forgotten man in all of this as well is Earl Bennett. Lets at least see what he can do for us before dumping another high pick in the position.

But sadly, some good this thread will do us. It needs to be out where the whole wide world can see it, not crammed in our team's little subforum where most people who see it are fans who agree.

regoob2
11-27-2008, 12:15 AM
I think the perception that Jeremy Maclin doesn't run NFL routes and only knows how to run the 9 route and its variations is just flatly false. The guy lines up so much in the slot in that Missouri offense that he runs way more intermediate routes than someone like Heyward-Bey does and he spends less time doing gimmicky screen work like Crabtree does. More over, he has great body control, great hands, and looks really smooth doing everything Missouri asks him to do.

If you Bears fans don't want Maclin, fine. But he'd be your best receiver immediately. I'm not even sure that my most optomistic predictions for Hester as a receiver would place him in the same stratosphere as a guy like Maclin.
That sounds great except the fact that it's not true. He doesnt have great hands and doesnt run NFL routes and wouldnt be our best receiver. I dont care if he looks good in the slot. He is only productive on screen passes, revereses and streaks.

Paranoidmoonduck
11-27-2008, 01:59 AM
That sounds great except the fact that it's not true. He doesnt have great hands and doesnt run NFL routes and wouldnt be our best receiver. I dont care if he looks good in the slot. He is only productive on screen passes, revereses and streaks.

Which Missouri team are you watching?

Nothing I said about Maclin can't be discerned from even watching highlight tapes, much less watching entire games.

regoob2
11-27-2008, 12:53 PM
Which Missouri team are you watching?

Nothing I said about Maclin can't be discerned from even watching highlight tapes, much less watching entire games.You said he has great hands. He has a good stomach and arms. I dont care if you think Maclin runs great routes. He doesnt. Maclin only has success running bs reverses and screens. If he is running all these NFL routes how come he cant make plays during these routes? No thanks. It doesnt really matter cause he would be stupid to come out.

Paranoidmoonduck
11-27-2008, 03:03 PM
You said he has great hands. He has a good stomach and arms. I dont care if you think Maclin runs great routes. He doesnt. Maclin only has success running bs reverses and screens. If he is running all these NFL routes how come he cant make plays during these routes? No thanks. It doesnt really matter cause he would be stupid to come out.

I have no idea what you're basing this on. Maclin runs tons of slants and outs for Missouri and does so with such suddeness that he is almost always open on them. Maclin also catches almost all his passes with his hands. And he's made several brilliant downfield catches (the touchdown against Kansas State comes to mind).

Yes, Missouri uses screen and reverses to get him into open space and let him carve up defenses. But just because their offense asks him to mostly do one thing doesn't mean he can't do another, especially in the few times he is asked to do them, he does them really well.

You are free to not like Jeremy Maclin, but please don't invent a false reality to support your opinion.

regoob2
11-27-2008, 03:28 PM
I have no idea what you're basing this on. Maclin runs tons of slants and outs for Missouri and does so with such suddeness that he is almost always open on them. Maclin also catches almost all his passes with his hands. And he's made several brilliant downfield catches (the touchdown against Kansas State comes to mind).

Yes, Missouri uses screen and reverses to get him into open space and let him carve up defenses. But just because their offense asks him to mostly do one thing doesn't mean he can't do another, especially in the few times he is asked to do them, he does them really well.

You are free to not like Jeremy Maclin, but please don't invent a false reality to support your opinion.
It's not a false reality. Yes he does run slants but he runs them for 50 yards across the field. That doesnt happen in the NFL. You dont get 10 secs to get open in the NFL. If Maclin was a 4.5 receiver he'd be a late round/FA pick. Everyone wants to over exaggerate the skills of there favorite college players. Maclin does NOTHING really well other than run fast. He's a good deep threat and that's it. He will never be a #1 WR.

619
11-27-2008, 03:36 PM
This Maclin hate around here kinda reminds me of the Ginn hate two years ago except he's a more polished all - around receiver with better size. Even Ginn's come along quite nicely so there's certainly room for another one of these playmaking receivers.

Gay Ork Wang
11-27-2008, 03:41 PM
and Ginn is no one our team would really need. He would be an upgrade, maybe but not a really big improvement. If we could have a ginn or bowe we'd take bowe (disregarding the success)

Paranoidmoonduck
11-27-2008, 05:30 PM
It's not a false reality. Yes he does run slants but he runs them for 50 yards across the field. That doesnt happen in the NFL. You dont get 10 secs to get open in the NFL. If Maclin was a 4.5 receiver he'd be a late round/FA pick. Everyone wants to over exaggerate the skills of there favorite college players. Maclin does NOTHING really well other than run fast. He's a good deep threat and that's it. He will never be a #1 WR.

Once again, I see no evidence in Missouri games to support what you're talking about. Maclin catches most of his slants right in the middle of the field out of the slot, which is exactly how slants are supposed to work. That Missouri offense's routes are really not that different from a pro-style offense, there's just more receivers on the field to create space. And if you want to hit him for being a guy who has greater than average space to work in, then where does that put someone like Crabtree?

Don't be tempted to fall prey to the "small and fast return guy" stereotype that everyone always hammers on someone every year. I didn't like Tedd Ginn because he was stiff in anything but a straight line and didn't work with the ball in the air very well. I liked DeSean Jackson more because he was much more fluid than Ginn and had a more advanced approach to catching the ball. I like Maclin even more because he's even smoother and has better vision in the open field and he's even more comfortable playing receiver. He even runs more pro routes that DeSean Jackson did in his junior year.

I'd drop a top 20 pick on Maclin, even if I didn't plan on using him as a return man. The guy is a quality receiver with great speed and quickness. This whole #1 receiver thing is silly. Michael Crabtree, with a lot of work, could maybe become a top flight wide receiver. Beyond him, no one in this draft is a #1 wide receiver, and I think Crabtree has more bust potential than some of those rated below him.

There's a reason the Chicago offense has a bunch of wideouts that are Maclin's size. It's because it works for that offense. Maclin would be the most talented manisfestation of that.

regoob2
11-27-2008, 11:09 PM
Once again, I see no evidence in Missouri games to support what you're talking about. Maclin catches most of his slants right in the middle of the field out of the slot, which is exactly how slants are supposed to work. That Missouri offense's routes are really not that different from a pro-style offense, there's just more receivers on the field to create space. And if you want to hit him for being a guy who has greater than average space to work in, then where does that put someone like Crabtree?

Don't be tempted to fall prey to the "small and fast return guy" stereotype that everyone always hammers on someone every year. I didn't like Tedd Ginn because he was stiff in anything but a straight line and didn't work with the ball in the air very well. I liked DeSean Jackson more because he was much more fluid than Ginn and had a more advanced approach to catching the ball. I like Maclin even more because he's even smoother and has better vision in the open field and he's even more comfortable playing receiver. He even runs more pro routes that DeSean Jackson did in his junior year.

I'd drop a top 20 pick on Maclin, even if I didn't plan on using him as a return man. The guy is a quality receiver with great speed and quickness. This whole #1 receiver thing is silly. Michael Crabtree, with a lot of work, could maybe become a top flight wide receiver. Beyond him, no one in this draft is a #1 wide receiver, and I think Crabtree has more bust potential than some of those rated below him.

There's a reason the Chicago offense has a bunch of wideouts that are Maclin's size. It's because it works for that offense. Maclin would be the most talented manisfestation of that.Ya your right. Missouri runs a pro style offense.

Monomach
11-28-2008, 12:55 AM
There's a reason the Chicago offense has a bunch of wideouts that are Maclin's size. It's because it works for that offense.
"Works" is a gross misrepresentation of what our wideouts do for our offense. If we just split our starting running back and both tight ends out wide every play, we'd have a better receiving corps.

As to what Regoob is saying about Maclin...that's all I've seen from him, too. I've seen some very suspect hands and almost no evidence that he's seen an NFL route anywhere other than on his TV.

Paranoidmoonduck
11-28-2008, 05:21 AM
Ya your right. Missouri runs a pro style offense.

Way to avoid my post by drawing something out of it that I didn't say.

regoob2
11-28-2008, 05:27 AM
Way to avoid my post by drawing something out of it that I didn't say.You pretty much did say that. How can you compare Crabtree and Maclin cause they play in space? Maclin has to have space Crabtree doesnt. Crabtree and Maclin are complete opposite WRs. I dont know what you see in Maclin. Maclin is mediocre in all but 1 category speed.

awfullyquiet
11-28-2008, 10:42 AM
Maclin is mediocre in all but 1 category speed.

He's not Bernard Berrian either.

regoob2
11-28-2008, 11:56 AM
He's not Bernard Berrian either.
As a prospect Maclin is slightly better.