Why in the world would Chicago considering trading Greg Olsen?
I don't get it, and I'm not sure if it's actually under consideration or whether this rumor-turned-speculation originated with the simple fact that Mike Martz hasn't typically used the tight end much in his passing offense. We delved into the issue last month and it surfaced again during Tuesday's SportsNation chat:
What is a realistic expectation of the Bears next year? I think that it will be tough for them to challenge for the division, with GB and MN so strong. That said, why would they even think of moving Olsen when there's a strong possibility that Martz (and maybe Lovie) are gone next year?
Kevin Seifert (2:04 PM)
I'm not sure they are actually thinking of trading Greg Olsen. I've said it before, and it bears repeating (no pun intended). It's incumbent on Mike Martz to find a way to utilize Olsen's talents, even if his offense traditionally hasn't made the tight end a focal point. Olsen is one of Martz's best inherited assets. It would be awfully arrogant on his part not to take full advantage.
(Sorry, Jeff, for not answering your first question.)
ESPN's Adam Schefter reports that Olsen could be traded if the Bears can get a high draft pick in return. I'm sure the Bears would value a second-round pick given their current lack of draft assets, but I think we're missing the point here.
I was all for Martz getting the job in Chicago. But I refuse to believe, at least not yet, that he could be stubborn enough to exclude one of his best pass-catchers from a central role simply because it would represent a change from his past practices.
The Bears are expecting a quick fix from Martz, and he's got a better chance of effecting that by maximizing what he has rather than discarding anyone. There has to be a way to use the tight end more in his offense.