One way to gauge if it was a good move to put Hester at the #1 WR spot is to see if he can match his average all-purpose yards (1,506) and average number of touchdowns (6) from '06 and '07, his most productive years, in future seasons. Also, someone else has to make up for his stellar performance on kickoff returns. Hopefully D. Manning will continue to shine in that department.

So, assuming his performance is replaced by Manning on kickoff returns in the future, Let's look at what Devin has to do to justify his move to #1 wide receiver. Let's say in 2009 Hester matches his career average punt return yards, 483 (12 yards per return). I use career average here vs. '06-'07 average above because you can't expect Hester to match his punt return totals from '06 and '07 while also performing #1 WR duties, but this is also assuming Hester bounces back at least some from his poor performance returning punts last season.

Now, in order for this to be a good move, he must match or beat his overall production from his best years in his new role. Assuming Hester puts up 483 punt return yards per year, this means he would still have to make up at least 1,023 all-purpose yards per year. He would also have to score an average total of at least 6 touchdowns per year. Whether Hester can do this is yet to be seen, but one can only hope.

However, I must concede that even this is a flawed analysis, because it would be infinitely easier to find a receiver capable of putting up 1,000 yards and 6 touchdowns than it would be to find another returner capable of what Hester did in '06 and '07, especially now that we have Cutler. We might have been better off trying to find that WR and sticking with Hester exclusively on returns. He may have to be that much better than anyone else we would have at #1 WR to justify the move. The analysis also doesn't take into account when teams punt out of bound against us, and the value that may or may not give Hester in terms of giving us good field position. In reality, we'll never know if this was truely a good move or not; we can only speculate.

Either way, can Hester put up 1,500 all-purpose yards and 6 total touchdowns per year as a #1 receiver and punt returner?

---

"There are only about a dozen NFL quarterbacks with the arm, charisma and willpower to carry a team to the Super Bowl. Cutler is on that list; Kyle Orton is not. Yet the Broncos gave Cutler away to the Bears because he didn’t make a positive first impression on new head coach Josh McDaniels. Franchise quarterbacks are harder to find than Super Bowl coaches. In fact, franchise quarterbacks often make Super Bowl coaches." -Rick Gosselin

jschneider88:

One way to gauge if it was a good move to put Hester at the #1 WR spot is to see if he can match his average all-purpose yards (1,506) and average number of touchdowns (6) from '06 and '07, his most productive years, in future seasons. Also, someone else has to make up for his stellar performance on kickoff returns. Hopefully D. Manning will continue to shine in that department.

So, assuming his performance is replaced by Manning on kickoff returns in the future, Let's look at what Devin has to do to justify his move to #1 wide receiver. Let's say in 2009 Hester matches his career average punt return yards, 483 (12 yards per return). I use career average here vs. '06-'07 average above because you can't expect Hester to match his punt return totals from '06 and '07 while also performing #1 WR duties, but this is also assuming Hester bounces back at least some from his poor performance returning punts last season.

Now, in order for this to be a good move, he must match or beat his overall production from his best years in his new role. Assuming Hester puts up 483 punt return yards per year, this means he would still have to make up at least 1,023 all-purpose yards per year. He would also have to score an average total of at least 6 touchdowns per year. Whether Hester can do this is yet to be seen, but one can only hope.

However, I must concede that even this is a flawed analysis, because it would be infinitely easier to find a receiver capable of putting up 1,000 yards and 6 touchdowns than it would be to find another returner capable of what Hester did in '06 and '07, especially now that we have Cutler. We might have been better off trying to find that WR and sticking with Hester exclusively on returns. He may have to be that much better than anyone else we would have at #1 WR to justify the move. The analysis also doesn't take into account when teams punt out of bound against us, and the value that may or may not give Hester in terms of giving us good field position. In reality, we'll never know if this was truely a good move or not; we can only speculate.

Either way, can Hester put up 1,500 all-purpose yards and 6 total touchdowns per year as a #1 receiver and punt returner?

Interesting post...

I think the bolded portion is a good point, but I don't think it's as big of a "problem" as you might perceive it to be.  I like this idea of using "all-purpose" yards because, in the end, it really doesn't matter how the yards were obtained.  Yes, it may be "harder" to do what Hester did on returns in his first two seasons, but I think that's irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is that the Bears win the games they play.  To do that, they need to score more points than the other team (obviously).  How they get those points is irrelevant as I see it; I don't care if they score passing TDs, rushing TDs, return TDs, or even just kick a lot more field goals.  The only thing that matters to me is that points(Bears) > points(Opponent) when the clock reaches 00:00.

---

"That's the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong."
-Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) in "Thank You For Smoking"

diabecktic:

Interesting post...

I think the bolded portion is a good point, but I don't think it's as big of a "problem" as you might perceive it to be.  I like this idea of using "all-purpose" yards because, in the end, it really doesn't matter how the yards were obtained.  Yes, it may be "harder" to do what Hester did on returns in his first two seasons, but I think that's irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is that the Bears win the games they play.  To do that, they need to score more points than the other team (obviously).  How they get those points is irrelevant as I see it; I don't care if they score passing TDs, rushing TDs, return TDs, or even just kick a lot more field goals.  The only thing that matters to me is that points(Bears) > points(Opponent) when the clock reaches 00:00.

Exactly, but my point was that if we continued to get 1,500 yards and 6-7 touchdowns a year from Hester on returns (and minimal WR duties), why would we give that up? If we found another receiver to put up 1,000 yards and six scores on his own, we'd have both, not just the 1,500 and 6-7 from Hester. Even if the WR we put at #1 only had 700 or 800 or 900 and a 3-5 scores we'd probably still be better off. I'm just having trouble justifying in my mind making Hester a full time receiver, or even moving him from the defense in the first place.

---

"There are only about a dozen NFL quarterbacks with the arm, charisma and willpower to carry a team to the Super Bowl. Cutler is on that list; Kyle Orton is not. Yet the Broncos gave Cutler away to the Bears because he didn’t make a positive first impression on new head coach Josh McDaniels. Franchise quarterbacks are harder to find than Super Bowl coaches. In fact, franchise quarterbacks often make Super Bowl coaches." -Rick Gosselin

if hester comes out firing in the beggining as a reciever i see the bears replacing some one to return punts also. probaly the rookies, knox or iggy

I like that you put time to look in to all of this, but you are right it is a flawed analysis. It will be interesting to see if moving him to a wide receiver was a good move or not. It is also interesting to see how people decide if it was a good decision.

jschneider88:

diabecktic:

Interesting post...

I think the bolded portion is a good point, but I don't think it's as big of a "problem" as you might perceive it to be.  I like this idea of using "all-purpose" yards because, in the end, it really doesn't matter how the yards were obtained.  Yes, it may be "harder" to do what Hester did on returns in his first two seasons, but I think that's irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is that the Bears win the games they play.  To do that, they need to score more points than the other team (obviously).  How they get those points is irrelevant as I see it; I don't care if they score passing TDs, rushing TDs, return TDs, or even just kick a lot more field goals.  The only thing that matters to me is that points(Bears) > points(Opponent) when the clock reaches 00:00.

Exactly, but my point was that if we continued to get 1,500 yards and 6-7 touchdowns a year from Hester on returns (and minimal WR duties), why would we give that up? If we found another receiver to put up 1,000 yards and six scores on his own, we'd have both, not just the 1,500 and 6-7 from Hester. Even if the WR we put at #1 only had 700 or 800 or 900 and a 3-5 scores we'd probably still be better off. I'm just having trouble justifying in my mind making Hester a full time receiver, or even moving him from the defense in the first place.

If that was the case, I think he would be in Canton as an active player; that kind of success would be unprecedented in professional football - it would be Gretzky-esque.  I think this assessment hinges on a whole lot of assumptions, though.  The most important of these would be this:  would it be possible for him to "keep it up" at that rate for an entire career?  There is some merit in the most popular reasoning for this:

1.  Hester is a game-breaker in every sense of the word.

2.  Placing the ball in the hands of game-breakers as much as possible helps us as fans see them work more of their magic (while the team - and fans - reap the benefits).

3.  Placing Hester on offense would validate #2, thus increasing the likilhood that we see more of #1.

Of course, there are contingencies with this line of reasoning, too.  Namely, does that "game-braking magic" transfer over to the WR position on offense.  In this case, I suppose that's why they play the game.  I look forward to seeing ~70 receptions/~1,100 yards/~8 TD out of him with JC throwing him the ball this year.  I hope he gets some of that return magic back, too, but if the Bears could get that from him as a receiver I wouldn't be displeased - as long as they still keep winning games.

I really do enjoy your views/perspective on this, though - it's quite interesting!!

---

"That's the beauty of argument. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong."
-Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) in "Thank You For Smoking"

diabecktic:

If that was the case, I think he would be in Canton as an active player; that kind of success would be unprecedented in professional football - it would be Gretzky-esque.  I think this assessment hinges on a whole lot of assumptions, though.  The most important of these would be this:  would it be possible for him to "keep it up" at that rate for an entire career?  There is some merit in the most popular reasoning for this: Good point. It's hard to expect Hester to keep up his unprecedented performance on returns all throughout his career, and the fact that this analysis is partially based on the assumption that he would is another reason it is pretty flawed. And yes, it is based on a lot of assumptions.

1.  Hester is a game-breaker in every sense of the word.

2.  Placing the ball in the hands of game-breakers as much as possible helps us as fans see them work more of their magic (while the team - and fans - reap the benefits).

3.  Placing Hester on offense would validate #2, thus increasing the likilhood that we see more of #1.

Of course, there are contingencies with this line of reasoning, too.  Namely, does that "game-braking magic" transfer over to the WR position on offense.  In this case, I suppose that's why they play the game.  I look forward to seeing ~70 receptions/~1,100 yards/~8 TD out of him with JC throwing him the ball this year.  I hope he gets some of that return magic back, too, but if the Bears could get that from him as a receiver I wouldn't be displeased - as long as they still keep winning games. That does seem to be the prevailing reasoning. And, you're right, as long as we keep winning games, I can hardly complain. I think as long as Manning keeps it up on kick returns, Hester at least shows flashes of what he's capable of on punt returns, and as long as he continues to take strides as a wide receiver, this move will probably be for the best.

I really do enjoy your views/perspective on this, though - it's quite interesting!! I appreciate it. When it comes to things like this, I tend to overthink and overanylize, and it leads to some pretty farfetched thinking. I'm glad at least someone found my ramblings interesting.

---

"There are only about a dozen NFL quarterbacks with the arm, charisma and willpower to carry a team to the Super Bowl. Cutler is on that list; Kyle Orton is not. Yet the Broncos gave Cutler away to the Bears because he didn’t make a positive first impression on new head coach Josh McDaniels. Franchise quarterbacks are harder to find than Super Bowl coaches. In fact, franchise quarterbacks often make Super Bowl coaches." -Rick Gosselin

I think you saw hester's value in Greg Olson last year. With hester as demanding attention and looser coverage from the safeties, olson was really able to come into his own. It also helped keep things a bit looser for Forte too. I don't think those two exploding last season was a mere coincidence.

Hester, even if he doesn't catch a single pass, opens up our offense because you simply have to respect the speed and the open field moves.