Chicago Bears Sign Marty Booker

by WCG on Mar 4, 2008 9:29 PM CST in Transactions

Oh, now I understand. It all makes sense now. I should have been so obvious we all should count ourselves ignorant for not seeing it. The way to boost your receiving corp is not by resigning your #1 speedster or by signing one of the hot young receivers looking to step up. The way to boost it is to sign a guy you got rid of years ago.

The Chicago Bears have agreed to terms with former-Bear Marty Booker. The deal is for 2 years.

Listen, I don't have a beef with Booker. There are a number of reasons to have him on this team. He is a good possession guy and we need one to replace Moose. Maybe he was signed with the understanding that he is going to help Hester and Bradley take the next step, it is just in the scheme of things when Alan Faneca and Michael Turner and Randy Moss and any other number of big names are available signing Marty Booker doesn't do a whole lot to raise confidence that these guys know what they are doing.

And for the record, rumors are the Bears are interested in Bryant Johnson again, though no word on a meeting.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Love the sarcasam

You nailed it. He replaces Moose. I hope he is better, but I don't see it happening. It is nice to add another body to the corp, and it is nice that he picked us over the Pats, but I just don't see how this makes us better.

I am hopeful about Bryant Johnson, but don't think it is going to happen.

I am still hopping mad about the way that FA is going.

by South Side Irish on Mar 4, 2008 9:39 PM CST 0 recs

not so bad

booker is at least as good as moose, if not slightly better. berrian bolting is still the stinger, but that money is better spent elsewhere. i would hope it'd be to bring in a good FA guard (and draft a OT in round 1). truthfully, if turner runs a halfway decent offense and we have a line that is, you know, respectable, i don't think our offense will be that bad. but this depends on getting at least a very good guard in FA, and running 2 TE sets frequently. i also think benson will be fine behind a decent OL.

by guy incognito on Mar 4, 2008 9:43 PM CST 0 recs

wrs

this is a nice pickup but as everyone agrees, there is no way to recover from berrian leaving.

Angelo is still a long way from proving to the fans and the team that he has improved the offense(which in his post season press conference he stated was his #1 priority).

I just dont understand the direction angelo is taking in upgrading the offense. I have a strong feeling that he and lovie think that the defense will be the offense this year.

by rahulsriram on Mar 4, 2008 10:23 PM CST 0 recs

Ah Yes

The Raiders just signed Javon Walker, but HEY! We got Booker. I call that a push.

by WCG on Mar 4, 2008 10:37 PM CST 0 recs

A push at best

Jeebus, this feels like the Bears are turning the clock back to 2001-02. Awesome!

I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something. - Dick Butkus

by iowaBear on Mar 5, 2008 8:12 PM CST up 0 recs

better than nothing

can't disagree with any of the comments, they are spot on. but at the end of the day, adding Booker is better than doing nothing. He's at least solid and brings some experience to the table.

by Ando on Mar 4, 2008 10:49 PM CST 0 recs

The book on Booker

He'll go across the middle!!!

by Ando on Mar 5, 2008 6:39 AM CST up 0 recs

middle man.

Yes he will go across the middle. Booker's a tough cat. He'll be a good possession guy, worth 600-700 yards and a few TDs.

-$uchM@N!

by suchman on Mar 5, 2008 7:26 AM CST up 0 recs

Look at it this way...

...We didn't over pay Walker like Oakland did (Face it he has bad knees) and we got a three year younger Moose. Plus I wish we would hear something REAL about the B. Johnson rumors other than just these teases. I want the Bears to sign him!

by GallopingGhost on Mar 4, 2008 11:11 PM CST 0 recs

yeah, talk about overpaying

WRs are getting stupid money this offseason. berrian gets paid like an elite receiver (which he's not). porter gets a pretty hefty contract for a guy who (like berrian) has yet to have one 1,000 yard season and who's had some injuries. walker gets a ridiculous contract for a guy who's had 2 major injuries in the past 4 years. as much as i want us to get a top FA receiver, there's no way we should be doling out these huge contracts for guys who aren't great or have injury concerns (i'd argue walker would be worth the money IF he didn't have the two major injuries).

by guy incognito on Mar 4, 2008 11:40 PM CST up 0 recs

It stand to reason then

that Johnson will be looking for more money than we would be likely to give him.

by WCG on Mar 5, 2008 3:46 AM CST up 0 recs

If they can still get Johnson...

...and the contracts between Johnson and Booker equal Berrian's, I'll be satisfied. Not pleased because I'm still a big believer in Bradley (not for logical reasons) and think Berrian, Bradley, Hester, Olsen would be a great future, but I'll accept it if Johnson comes in and is the best WR for the Bears (which shouldn't be hard).

If they don't get Johnson, though, or if he's a total bust, this off-season for the offense was a bust, no matter what happens in the draft. (almost)

by tyger1147 on Mar 4, 2008 11:28 PM CST 0 recs

Good pickup

He's younger than Moose and will be a good posession receiver. Nothing more. We still need a real #1. Johnson can be that guy.

by Chad on Mar 5, 2008 12:23 AM CST 0 recs

yeah

maybe booker isn't a world beater, but if anyone really thought we would get randy moss, javon walker, faneca, michael turner...that is just a little unrealistic. for one, we have a ton of money sunk into benson so turner was a major longshot, i think the main reason he was even linked to the bears is because he played at NIU. moss would never sacrifice his last few years in the league to play for a team that starts 3 different qbs year in and year out. and we weren't going to dish out the gigantic contracts that berrian and faneca got, just not how the bears do things.

like tyger said, if we get booker and johnson, i'll take it. it will basically be replacing booker with moose and i think bookers hands are an upgrade. johnson and berrian are kind of a push, i think johnson may have more upside and he has a little more size.

by lopey986 on Mar 5, 2008 1:12 AM CST 0 recs

I think this is a good move

If we upgrade our oline and actually have a running game again, then we should be fine. I think all this worst offense in the nfl talk is a bit premature. Marty booker is at least as good as moose was last year, which means all we need is a wr to run in a straight line really fast to replace berrian, and we are already back at the status quo.

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Mar 5, 2008 1:58 AM CST 0 recs

and to be fair to mb

we didnt get rid of him we traded him to miami for Ogunleye, which I think we can all agree was a good move.

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Mar 5, 2008 2:28 AM CST up 0 recs

Great move :)

Visit The NEW Cub Reporter (www.thecubreporter.com)

by thecubreporter on Mar 5, 2008 6:37 AM CST up 0 recs

If that's all you think Berrian did...

...then you didn't keep track of him enough. Berrian isn't a "complete receiver", but he's hardly what you described him as.

by tyger1147 on Mar 5, 2008 8:17 AM CST up 0 recs

granted

it might have been an oversimplification. But I dont think losing him is gonna scrap our offense.

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Mar 5, 2008 10:12 AM CST up 0 recs

Maybe

At first I was pissed to hear this, but I'll take him over Moose droppings any day; I never liked Moose. So, we get another year of Benson's sour attitude with an inexperienced weak side protetion for Grossman. With Dumb Shit Dr. Obvious Turner calling the plays, I might as well wait for 2009. I have vowed to stop wearing my jerseys until we get rid of Turner or Lovie - prefferably both.

by stumpo on Mar 5, 2008 7:14 AM CST 0 recs

lovie

C'mon man... all things considered, I think Lovie's the right guy for the Bears. And regarding Turner, I don't like th eguys play calling (in general), but who would we gonna replace him with? A "Mike Martz" type coordinator? I doubt that.

-$uchM@N!

by suchman on Mar 5, 2008 7:29 AM CST up 0 recs

No Love for Lovie

Sorry, but he hasn't shown me anything. Don't say he got us to the super bowl, our defense and special temas carried through the second half of that season. And why the hell do you take a TJ in the SB after he gets on a hot streak. Then benson gets hurt and we act like it's our number 1 back and proceed to pass the rest of the game. We should have won that Super Bowl. I would just like to see something different this year then the old - run, run, pass, punt offense. When we say we're a runnig team and we're running off the bus, how easy is it to put together a defensive game plan against us. Come on, how many times in a season do we actually fool the defense. Even if we don't get a number 1 receiver we still have enough talent IF utilized correctly to win. We should be running two tight end formations a lot this year with our depth. If not, we will see the same boring ass predictable offense we saw last year. Does anyone know our scoring percenatage when we start past our 35 yard line? We're just not a threat on offense and we have an overpaid RB that break any big runs. The ones late last year don't count, I want big runs when the games mean something.

by stumpo on Mar 5, 2008 9:51 AM CST up 0 recs

Wait, what?

Isn't he the coach of the defense and special teams, too?

--d

by itsugly on Mar 5, 2008 10:02 AM CST up 0 recs

Oh

Wait, didn't Lovie come in when we already had a solid defense and Special teams. I can't stand the guy because he's expressionless and we still can't find a coach to build a strong offense. Seriously when was the last time another team feared our offfense? When was the last time you sat at home and said, oh we're definatly scoring this drive. It's becomes sad when you look for your special teams and defense to score the same if not more pts then your offense. I still have yet to see a game plan that worked and heaven forbid we ever make a change or adjustment before halftime.

by stumpo on Mar 5, 2008 11:19 AM CST up 0 recs

You have to be trolling...

...because the numbers don't lie:He took over a mid range D in 2004 - in points and yards allowed- and had it in the top 5 for the 2005 and 2006 season in both of the categories, until last year's injuries dropped us backin the Pack.

The 2001 D was in the rear view mirror as jauron's high point by the time Love rolled in.

by PopeFlick on Mar 5, 2008 1:16 PM CST up 0 recs

When looking at offensive

stats, I usually concentrate on 3rd down %. We have been near the worst in the league for awhile now. Turner is an awful coordinator when it comes to 3rd and anything really.

We are also a very undisciplined football team. We have had over 100 penalties the past two seasons. We have false start problems and holding problems. We take personal fouls. It's terrible. Sometimes the calls are bullshit, but most of the time they are not. And sometimes there are missed calls, like the blatant hold on that TD pass to Berrian to win the Oakland game. Miller mauled his guy something fierce. But, the guy didn't fall and you could see jersey, therefore it wasn't a penalty. That's the ONLY time a penalty is called, even if the guy falling down had awful leverage and that's really what caused him to fall.

Ok, that was a rant. But, I don't care. 3rd downs suck, percentage of drives scoring post 35 yard line is a function of that statistic. We were especially bad starting the game, which means Turner either didn't script his plays or the scripted plays sucked ass.

What I don't understand is why we didn't embrace the no-huddle offense after it worked in so many situations last season, with both Griese and Grossman at the helm.

by mikebdot on Mar 5, 2008 10:33 AM CST up 0 recs

Turner must Die

Thank you, we hardly ever score in the first part of the game. When we find something that works like the no huddle, we forget about it and go back to run, run ,pass. Bottom line is that our offense sucks and someone needs to start taking responsibility over it. I rag on Lovie because he sits back and watches this offense go 3 and out all the time and does nothing. Oh wait, he brought back our offensive co this year, thanks Lovie.

by stumpo on Mar 5, 2008 11:13 AM CST up 0 recs

if you believe the rumor

lovie wanted to get rid of turner, but angelo said that if turner leaves babich has to leave. I know that doesnt really make sense but thats the rumor.

-leopoldjones

by leopoldjones on Mar 5, 2008 2:23 PM CST up 0 recs

RON TURNER IS BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something. - Dick Butkus

by iowaBear on Mar 5, 2008 8:14 PM CST up 0 recs

Meetings?

What is with you and these "meetings". Shit, this Booker thing was a total surprise to everyone, even though it was perfectly obvious.

Agents float rumors about meetings because they're in trouble. Buffalo obviously didn't do anything stupid like offer him #1 receiver money up front. It was probably an incentive laden deal. We'll do the same. Hopefully we can beat it.

If we signed Johnson, would you be satisfied going into the season at the WR position?

I would.

by mikebdot on Mar 5, 2008 7:43 AM CST 0 recs

Johnson

I think Johnson is meeting with the Skins and they are in dire need of a reciever. They'll snatch him up, I don't think he even comes for a visit with the Bears. As for Booker, it's better than nothing and if he can be the guy we thought Moose was going to be, that's a good signing.

GO BEARS!!!!!

by McRipper on Mar 5, 2008 8:07 AM CST 0 recs

This move by itself confuses me

but I'll wait to pass judgment till we get closer to the beginning of the season. If Mary Booker is THE MAN next year then we have problems. If the Bears can manage to get some other guys either through the draft or free agency to make Marty just another guy then this is ok.

all the way to Tampa

by mike on Mar 5, 2008 9:23 AM CST 0 recs

Marty Booker

is just the kind of veteran g to guy we need to take the next step in this offense. He'll help Grossman/Orton and whoever else we get in the draft. He wont throw Grossman under the bus like MEhsin Muhammed did. Im sorry I always thought Moose was overrated, he had 2 good years at Carolina and everyone treated him like he was a top 5 receiver in the league when he can to the bears, Booker is a much better receiver in my opinion.

by DaNate23 on Mar 5, 2008 10:22 AM CST 0 recs

Run-blocking

How does Booker compare to Moose as a run-blocker?

by rocky on Mar 5, 2008 11:05 AM CST 0 recs

If our backs

can't make it past the line of scrimmage it won't really matter.

He's actually a pretty good run blocker though. Big hands, big body, good leverage. Not sure how to compare though without anecdotal evidence.

by mikebdot on Mar 5, 2008 11:14 AM CST up 0 recs

Hardly exciting but

Booker vs Mushin is probably a push. Booker gets some points for being more of a team player by most accounts. Hester can probably be similar to Berrian about 2 years ago....our deep threat. Obviously Berrian was more our #1 last year and I don't think we've really replaced that, and certainly haven't upgraded which is what we need to be doing.

Be nice to pick up Johnson maybe and/or try to get Doucet, Sweed or Kelly in the draft.

Visit The NEW Cub Reporter (www.thecubreporter.com)

by thecubreporter on Mar 5, 2008 12:22 PM CST 0 recs