BUFFALOTONE Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 GM gives a clue on Olsen 9:18AM ET Greg Olsen | Bears | Interested: Patriots?, Bengals? Top Email TEs under Martz's guidance * 2006: Jon Kitna completes 372 passes for 4,208 yards and 21 TDs. Detroit's leading TE is Dan Campbell: 21 receptions, 308 yards, 4 TDs. * 2007: Kitna completes 355 passes for 4,068 yards and 18 TDs. Sean McHugh is the leading TE on the Lions, catching 17 passes for 252 yards and no touchdowns. * 2008: Shaun Hill and J.T. O'Sullivan combine for 309 completions, 3,724 yards, 21 TDs. Vernon Davis has 31 receptions for 358 yards, 2 TDs. In 2009, Davis makes the Pro Bowl with 78 receptions, 965 yards and 13 TDs. Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune has word from multiple league sources that the Bears might sign Brandon Manumaleuna, a stout blocking-oriented TE. He's the type of player at TE that new OC Mike Martz loves, and his signing could indicate that the Bears are ready to move Greg Olsen. As we're well aware by now, the Bears don't have any draft picks in the first or second rounds this April, and they might be able to secure a pick or two by moving a player who is not a fit for the Martzian scheme. In an interview with ChicagoBears.com, GM Jerry Angelo addressed Olsen indirectly. "A name was brought up to me [recently] about a potential player that might not be a real good fit -- his name's been bantered around ... But we're in the business to keep our good players. We're in the business to make sure that our schemes facilitate our better players. That to me is what good coaching is about. So for me to see us trading somebody away at this point, I really don't see that happening." Angelo did say that if another team came in with a solid offer, the Bears would consider it. The Tribune's Dan Pompei provided another good reason why they shouldn't trade Olsen: Martz (as well as Lovie Smith and Angelo) might not be around in 2011, and the new regime might be more TE-friendly. Thoughts? With T.O. gone it would be great to have another semi viable option to throw to, not to mention take some pressure off the QB. Would they be willing to take a 3rd for Olsen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 GM gives a clue on Olsen9:18AM ET Greg Olsen | Bears | Interested: Patriots?, Bengals? Top Email TEs under Martz's guidance * 2006: Jon Kitna completes 372 passes for 4,208 yards and 21 TDs. Detroit's leading TE is Dan Campbell: 21 receptions, 308 yards, 4 TDs. * 2007: Kitna completes 355 passes for 4,068 yards and 18 TDs. Sean McHugh is the leading TE on the Lions, catching 17 passes for 252 yards and no touchdowns. * 2008: Shaun Hill and J.T. O'Sullivan combine for 309 completions, 3,724 yards, 21 TDs. Vernon Davis has 31 receptions for 358 yards, 2 TDs. In 2009, Davis makes the Pro Bowl with 78 receptions, 965 yards and 13 TDs. Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune has word from multiple league sources that the Bears might sign Brandon Manumaleuna, a stout blocking-oriented TE. He's the type of player at TE that new OC Mike Martz loves, and his signing could indicate that the Bears are ready to move Greg Olsen. As we're well aware by now, the Bears don't have any draft picks in the first or second rounds this April, and they might be able to secure a pick or two by moving a player who is not a fit for the Martzian scheme. In an interview with ChicagoBears.com, GM Jerry Angelo addressed Olsen indirectly. "A name was brought up to me [recently] about a potential player that might not be a real good fit -- his name's been bantered around ... But we're in the business to keep our good players. We're in the business to make sure that our schemes facilitate our better players. That to me is what good coaching is about. So for me to see us trading somebody away at this point, I really don't see that happening." Angelo did say that if another team came in with a solid offer, the Bears would consider it. The Tribune's Dan Pompei provided another good reason why they shouldn't trade Olsen: Martz (as well as Lovie Smith and Angelo) might not be around in 2011, and the new regime might be more TE-friendly. Thoughts? With T.O. gone it would be great to have another semi viable option to throw to, not to mention take some pressure off the QB. Would they be willing to take a 3rd for Olsen? Shawn Nelson is this teams starting TE. Where does Olsen fit? Unless your going with a 2 TE set. Which would prolly be better for us then a bad FB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Now that would be "retarded" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 Now that would be "retarded" Thanks for sharing your expert opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 Shawn Nelson is this teams starting TE. Where does Olsen fit? Unless your going with a 2 TE set. Which would prolly be better for us then a bad FB. I liked some of the flashes Nelson showed last year but got dinged up and has some catching up to do. Olsen is an instant help at one of our many position needs. Granted TE isn't a glaring weakness but having a vet on a very young offense could be great for Jimmy Clausen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 I liked some of the flashes Nelson showed last year but got dinged up and has some catching up to do. Olsen is an instant help at one of our many position needs. Granted TE isn't a glaring weakness but having a vet on a very young offense could be great for Jimmy Clausen What do you want with a tight end who cannot block??....in Bflo of all places. If we had a rock solid line, maybe, but I think the TE in Bflo has to be a willing blocker and Olsen just is not strong enough or willing to play that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Long Beach Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Intriguing. Nelson looks like he's got a decent chance to be a good receiving TE. His blocking is so-so to bad. He's definitely not the greatest blocker to base a running game behind. But he stretches the middle of the field and has good hands. IMO, injuries are also a concern with him. Our other TE's are JAG's even if I like them personality-wise. So we have no good Backup or 2 TE option. But since we have SO many holes to fill, I'm not sure that I'd be willing to give up a 3rd rounder which is a potential major contributor (with luck and good scouting) for a second TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBaumer Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Any free agent that is not on the DL or OL, I'm not interested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Nelson is the receiving TE, we need another blocking TE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 1. Are we sure Nelson is ready to start? 2. Olsen's better anyway. 3. Bears are idiots if they even consider dumping a first-round pick -- and their leading receiver last year -- so Martz can bring in one of his old Rams buddies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 1. Are we sure Nelson is ready to start?2. Olsen's better anyway. 3. Bears are idiots if they even consider dumping a first-round pick -- and their leading receiver last year -- so Martz can bring in one of his old Rams buddies. There stupidity is our gain. It would feel nice to have the shoe on the other foot though, you know someone else screwing the pooch and getting fleeced. The Bears could be dying for some draft picks to help that beaten defense. Martz likes the smaller faster WRs to run that timing offense. And I would take Olsen in a heart beat if the deal was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Why would they trade away their only offensive receiving threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 Why would they trade away their only offensive receiving threat? Draft picks and I guess a TE isn't highly utilized in Martz' offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Thanks for sharing your expert opinion. No silly, not our interest in Olsen, but rather Chicago's disinterest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manbeast Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Intriguing. Nelson looks like he's got a decent chance to be a good receiving TE. His blocking is so-so to bad. He's definitely not the greatest blocker to base a running game behind. But he stretches the middle of the field and has good hands. IMO, injuries are also a concern with him. Our other TE's are JAG's even if I like them personality-wise. So we have no good Backup or 2 TE option. But since we have SO many holes to fill, I'm not sure that I'd be willing to give up a 3rd rounder which is a potential major contributor (with luck and good scouting) for a second TE. Schouman looked decent before getting injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SawchukBills Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 Any trade we make that requires us to give up high draft picks and/or starters better be for areas of great need! Not tight end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robkmil Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 1. Are we sure Nelson is ready to start?2. Olsen's better anyway. 3. Bears are idiots if they even consider dumping a first-round pick -- and their leading receiver last year -- so Martz can bring in one of his old Rams buddies. The Bears are idiots if they keep him and don't throw him the ball especially if they can trade him and get anything for him. receiving TE's are not used in this offense and he wouldn't be used for what he is getting paid to be good at. paying him to block would be like paying roscoe and expecting him to be a receiver and not return punts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkc Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 way to many holes to add a second pass catching te Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JStranger76 Posted March 2, 2010 Share Posted March 2, 2010 I would rather sign Watson or LJ Smith to pair with Nelson........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted March 2, 2010 Author Share Posted March 2, 2010 I would rather sign Watson or LJ Smith to pair with Nelson........ Didn't LJ Smith just sign a contract with another team last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts