Can Greg Olsen Be Jay Cutler's Wes Welker?

[jdilla]

Big time quarterbacks, traditionally, have always had, or developed, themselves that big time receiver. Montana to Rice, Steve Young to Rice, Jim Kelly to Reed and so on. But now, in today's NFL, everyone is fast, and in the NFC North, all the Quarterback situations look pretty darn good... there is, of course, that one question mark in Minnesota. :crazydance:

But, today you need that combination of strong body and speed burst, quick cuts, and great catches, possession receptions, soft hands, and lots of first downs. Most important is that much spoken about chemistry which I heard Cutler and Olsen had a lot of in training camp last season, but if it was there I couldn't tell on the football field. I've heard those who believe when defensive coordinator's found out about said chemistry(between Cutler and Olsen), they just took the Olsen option away with their secondary. How good are you if you are shut down as a big, fast, pass-catching tight end like Tony Gonzalez or Antonio Gates. Thats what the point is here. Can #82 be Jay Cutler's security blanket.



Olsen certainly has the size and build and seems to have the skill set, and his 60 receptions and 8 tds were rather quiet last season which also seems to be a trait of those go to type of guys like Wes Welker is to Brady. Remember what Dallas Clark was to Peyton Manning? Anthony Gonzalez said as a rookie Peyton Manning had him to watch tape of Clark's entire previous season in order to know what would be expected of him. A complete football player is what Olsen needs to become. He needs to stay back and block; he needs to block and release, selling the block well; he needs to be physical enough with corners and safeties and quick(not fast) enough to burn linebackers; he has to be able to create space and make Cutler comfortable enough to lead him to the pass, which doesn't take much for machine gun Cutler.

What do you think? Can Olsen be that sure handed, play-making, possession receiver? The greater QB's seem to all have them, that guy they can count on down in and down out, although that may be the reason why the greats are great: for developing star receivers into stars. When everything breaks down on a play, can Olsen be that guy Cutler can and should look for?

Of course this article assumes Greg Olsen is not traded away this offseason. Thanks for reading.

 

[USCChiFan]

No, and I didn't read much of it
As much as I and most Bears fans want to believe that he'll be a focal point or a factor in Mike Martz's offense, it probably won't happen. If Vernon Davis, who's a fast TE who's a great receiver can't have success w/ Martz, then Olsen likely won't.

 

[Manticore]

No, and I didn't read much of it
As much as I and most Bears fans want to believe that he'll be a focal point or a factor in Mike Martz's offense, it probably won't happen. If Vernon Davis, who's a fast TE who's a great receiver can't have success w/ Martz, then Olsen likely won't.

Yeah but it's also reported that Vernon didn't get serious about playing until Singletary got serious about pulling his pants down.

Oh and regards to the orginaly thread, no I don't think so.

I don't understand why your comparing Welker and Olsen other than the "safety valve" asset that Olsen may share in common with Welker.

I have to believe that Olsen's skill set will be utilized under Martz,but more so in the red zone. So I wouldn't expect the catch numbers to go up,but I believe the TD numbers will.

 

[jdilla]

The point here is can the chemistry that was said to be good between Cutler and Olsen develop into a major part of the offense. Maybe not every down but on critical plays. Welker and Olsen are obviously two very different players but Olsen or some other receiver on this team has to become that go to guy and that guy doesn't have to be split wide in the X or Z spot.

 

[Manticore]

The point here is can the chemistry that was said to be good between Cutler and Olsen develop into a major part of the offense. Maybe not every down but on critical plays. Welker and Olsen are obviously two very different players but Olsen or some other receiver on this team has to become that go to guy and that guy doesn't have to be split wide in the X or Z spot.

I understand, I think it's more likely that that guy will be Aroma.I do really like Olsen,but he needs to show some more things for him to be "that guy". He doesn't seem to hold his ground that well on hook routes,as much as someone should to be "that" guy. I gotcha though.

 

[RustedShut]

I don't see why Olsen can't be used as a hybrid WR. I really don't.

 

[Wrigley]

I don't think he can be a Wes Welker type of player for Cutler. What I see from Olsen is a guy that could be used in mid-deep post routes, and just let Cutler fire some deep balls to his big target in Olsen. Welker runs short patterns across the middle, and uses his speed to turn the catch into more yardage, and I don't think anyone really can honestly say that Olsen could do that.

 

[USCChiFan]

Yeah but it's also reported that Vernon didn't get serious about playing until Singletary got serious about pulling his pants down.

Oh and regards to the orginaly thread, no I don't think so.

I don't understand why your comparing Welker and Olsen other than the "safety valve" asset that Olsen may share in common with Welker.

I have to believe that Olsen's skill set will be utilized under Martz,but more so in the red zone. So I wouldn't expect the catch numbers to go up,but I believe the TD numbers will.

Olsen is terrible in the Red Zone. He doesn't use his size to his advantage. As for Vernon, Martz used him to block a lot, and he ended up with only 31 receptions.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

lol olsen will never get close to 100 receptions in a season

 

[bossdrb]

Big time quarterbacks, traditionally, have always had, or developed, themselves that big time receiver. Montana to Rice, Steve Young to Rice, Jim Kelly to Reed and so on. But now, in today's NFL, everyone is fast, and in the NFC North, all the Quarterback situations look pretty darn good... there is, of course, that one question mark in Minnesota. :crazydance:

But, today you need that combination of strong body and speed burst, quick cuts, and great catches, possession receptions, soft hands, and lots of first downs. Most important is that much spoken about chemistry which I heard Cutler and Olsen had a lot of in training camp last season, but if it was there I couldn't tell on the football field. I've heard those who believe when defensive coordinator's found out about said chemistry(between Cutler and Olsen), they just took the Olsen option away with their secondary. How good are you if you are shut down as a big, fast, pass-catching tight end like Tony Gonzalez or Antonio Gates. Thats what the point is here. Can #82 be Jay Cutler's security blanket.



Olsen certainly has the size and build and seems to have the skill set, and his 60 receptions and 8 tds were rather quiet last season which also seems to be a trait of those go to type of guys like Wes Welker is to Brady. Remember what Dallas Clark was to Peyton Manning? Anthony Gonzalez said as a rookie Peyton Manning had him to watch tape of Clark's entire previous season in order to know what would be expected of him. A complete football player is what Olsen needs to become. He needs to stay back and block; he needs to block and release, selling the block well; he needs to be physical enough with corners and safeties and quick(not fast) enough to burn linebackers; he has to be able to create space and make Cutler comfortable enough to lead him to the pass, which doesn't take much for machine gun Cutler.

What do you think? Can Olsen be that sure handed, play-making, possession receiver? The greater QB's seem to all have them, that guy they can count on down in and down out, although that may be the reason why the greats are great: for developing star receivers into stars. When everything breaks down on a play, can Olsen be that guy Cutler can and should look for?

Of course this article assumes Greg Olsen is not traded away this offseason. Thanks for reading.

Good job taking the time writing all of this. To answer your question; definitely. I think Olsen is a little tougher than what people think.

Granted, he's not a good blocker. We know this. We have Dez Clark, who is underrated, and Manu now. In my opinion, Olsen was mostly hit with short passes, so of course he has a lesser YAC.

 

[Castro's Fidel]

Olson is good but I don't think Welker was a good example to use. They already have good chemistry but Brady/Welker is unparalleled.

 

[USCChiFan]

The only thing close to Brady/Welker is Peyton/Clark or Peyton/Wayne

 

[Salos Ruptured Teste]

Good job taking the time writing all of this. To answer your question; definitely. I think Olsen is a little tougher than what people think.

Granted, he's not a good blocker. We know this. We have Dez Clark, who is underrated, and Manu now. In my opinion, Olsen was mostly hit with short passes, so of course he has a lesser YAC.

Wrong. Olsen can't block, has concrete hands and gator arms, shys away from contact and is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
Olsen really doesn't have a place in a Martz scheme either. A TE who can't block is useless to Martz.

 

[bossdrb]

Wrong. Olsen can't block, has concrete hands and gator arms, shys away from contact and is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
Olsen really doesn't have a place in a Martz scheme either. A TE who can't block is useless to Martz.

Concrete hands? He has the best hands on our team. Get outta here with that.

 

[Salos Ruptured Teste]

Concrete hands? He has the best hands on our team. Get outta here with that.

Tall midget award. And he's useless. Don't expect to see a whole lot of him in 2010. He should be traded. Sooner rather than later would be nice. Plus he's a whiney bitch. I suppose I get why you like him. It's the long hair and tats. But as far as football, there's better alternatives already on the team, Olsen isn't tough and he's too droppy, can't blockey, and he plays much smaller than he actually is.

 

[bossdrb]

Tall midget award. And he's useless. Don't expect to see a whole lot of him in 2010. He should be traded. Sooner rather than later would be nice. Plus he's a whiney bitch. I suppose I get why you like him. It's the long hair and tats. But as far as football, there's better alternatives already on the team, Olsen isn't tough and he's too droppy, can't blockey, and he plays much smaller than he actually is.

Long hair and tats? You've got to be kiddin' me. I supported trading him if we got something outta him. I don't care if he has long hair and shit. If he produces on the field and is a good dude, I like him. And he might not be tough, but at least he ran his routes correctly.

 

[Salos Ruptured Teste]

I'd support trading him if they got basically nothing for him. Don't you think they tried to trade him and no one wants him?
Look, everyone in the league knows Martz A) doesn't like Olsen and B) doesn't have a use for a non blocking TE. That means his trade value is nothing. He won't play much. What is the point of keeping him around?
The answer to the original question is no.

 

[USCChiFan]

Tall midget award. And he's useless. Don't expect to see a whole lot of him in 2010. He should be traded. Sooner rather than later would be nice. Plus he's a whiney bitch. I suppose I get why you like him. It's the long hair and tats. But as far as football, there's better alternatives already on the team, Olsen isn't tough and he's too droppy, can't blockey, and he plays much smaller than he actually is.

I agree with most of this, but his hands are pretty reliable. He doesn't drop many passes as far as I've seen, but in the Red Zone Ron Turner kept throwing the predictable fade to the TE, which failed miserably. As for better alternatives, who? Manu is strictly a blocker, Clark is good but he's getting old, and Davis is still somewhat raw and he hasn't reached his potential.

 

[bossdrb]

I'd support trading him if they got basically nothing for him. Don't you think they tried to trade him and no one wants him?
Look, everyone in the league knows Martz A) doesn't like Olsen and B) doesn't have a use for a non blocking TE. That means his trade value is nothing. He won't play much. What is the point of keeping him around?
The answer to the original question is no.

I agree he may not play much, but we could still use him. He's a good receiver. Have him on the left side of the line to brush off a block and do a shorter route, while Dez or Manu on the right side stays in the block.

 

[Salos Ruptured Teste]

Seriously, the problem wasn't really Olsen (well it kinda was because he is not particularly good at football) nor was it Ron Turner. The problem was a corps of LOUSY receivers, and bad pass protection. Olsen's fade was all that could be done in the 1.5 seconds that Cutler had to throw the ball.
Olsen doesn't improve pass protection. He doesn't improve the receiving corps. He's useless.