Chicago Bears Didn't Get Better End of Greg Olsen Deal with Carolina Panthers

From the Carolina Panthers' perspective, the trade for Greg Olsen makes perfect sense.

Along with Jeremy Shockey, Olsen should provide an inexperienced (Cam Newton) or so-far inept (Jimmy Clausen) quarterback a safety net. A go-to receiver either quarterback can count on to get open.

From the Chicago Bears' perspective, I can understand (somewhat) why they would make this trade. Mike Martz has made it very clear that his system requires a blocking tight end rather than a receiving one.

That's why the Bears agreed to terms with former Pittsburgh Steelers tight end Matt Spaeth.

I get that the go-to receiver in Martz's offense (apparently) needs to be, well, the wide receiver. And I'll feel better about the trade if the Bears can land a big-name receiver like Plaxico Burress or Braylon Edwards.

What I don't get is Chicago's blatant attempt to get rid of Olsen.

Olsen caught five touchdown passes in 2010, tied for the team lead. He was second on the team in receiving yards (561) and fourth in receptions (41).

You don't just give away a commodity like Olsen for a mere third-round pick. Unless he complained about playing in a 3-4 system and couldn't get himself into shape (Albert Haynesworth) or constantly demanded a trade and displayed a me-first attitude (Chad Ochocinco).

By the way, remember when the New England Patriots made Super Bowl history by introducing themselves as a team in Super Bowl XXXVI? What happened?

First, Randy Moss. Now Haynesworth and Ochocinco?

Unless the Bears could have gotten something truly valuable for Olsen, they should have kept him. And Martz should have realized what kind of team he had and adjusted his offensive system accordingly.

The adjustment got them to the NFC Championship Game in 2010.