Why not Grossman?
 

Honest question, why not? Does Orton really bring more to the table?

I've never been a Grossman fan at all, and it is an obvious gamble, but I think the Bears possesing a capable offense could turn them into serious title contenders and the reward >>> risk.

(also i haven't watched a bears game the entire season, please feel free to correct me)

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

They won't play Grossman because they've been winning with Orton, but I'm on your side. By just about any measure, Orton has been the worst starting QB in the league. It's very unlikely that Grossman would be worse.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

Well right now Grossman isn't 100% and he hasn't played since week 2 of last year. So he's pretty rusty and right now Orton has won 8 in a row.

The real sickining part right now is with the defense and the running game this team can go far in the playoffs. With Grossman they could be scary good. Of course if he comes in a starts making mistakes they could break up a pretty good thing.

FWIW, please let Grossman take over I want to go to the Super Bowl.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

QB isn't really the offenses problem. The recievers are horrible and almost never open and yesterday anyway the pass protection was real bad. Grossman or any QB you can name would not have made much difference in yesterdays game. Defenders were pretty much draped over the Bears woeful recievers on every play.

At least Orton is making less mistakes and giving the defense a chance to win. Grossman would not improve things a bit and may actually be a step backwards at this point.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, please let Grossman take over I want to go to the Super Bowl.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I'm saying this could happen, but Jesus, could you imagine if Chicago would win 2 sports championships within a year of each other? The city might spontaneously combust.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

It would be stupid to a) rush Grossman and b) create a QB controversy in the middle of the season. I don't think it's a given that Grossman would be better right now, and it might just create an unnecessary distraction.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It would be stupid to a) rush Grossman and b) create a QB controversy in the middle of the season. I don't think it's a given that Grossman would be better right now, and it might just create an unnecessary distraction.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. Grossman has never proven anything in the NFL, except that he can get hurt. If he had established himself as their starter, instead of just their hope for the future, then things would be different.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

All,
I thnk this leads to another question. If Chi gets to the NFC Championship game (or beyond) is the organization tied to Orton? Does Rex become trade bait?

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

pfunk,

No, definitely not.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

you mean 68yds passing isn't good?

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
you mean 68yds passing isn't good?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's too good.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
QB isn't really the offenses problem. The recievers are horrible and almost never open and yesterday anyway the pass protection was real bad. Grossman or any QB you can name would not have made much difference in yesterdays game. Defenders were pretty much draped over the Bears woeful recievers on every play.

At least Orton is making less mistakes and giving the defense a chance to win. Grossman would not improve things a bit and may actually be a step backwards at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think some of the problem the receivers are having is QB related. It's one of those where in the NFL you must be able to see the Wide Out coming open and the ball has to be there just when he gets open. If the QB waits for the guy to get open and then throws the ball, a defender will be there.

The way that offense works most effectively is if the QB drops back stops and throws. Orton had at least five seconds every time he dropped back. He really needs to make a throw in that time or start moving out of the pocket.

I'm not 100% sold on Grossman being better. If the Bears are down by 10 going into the 4th quarter I would be praying for the defense to score if Orton's in there. I would feel a comeback was possible with Grossman in.

There are very few opportunities in the NFL to have an injury free season (which until this weekend the Bears have had on defense). I just want the best possible result for this season.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

the real question is how bad are the Bears going to tank it in the playoffs this year?

Just like 2001; a crappy schedule and a few breaks, but an above average team at best.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
the real question is how bad are the Bears going to tank it in the playoffs this year?


[/ QUOTE ] Give me an NFC team that is a clear favorite over the Bears.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

Right now, its because he isn't healthy.

I hope that they do put him in when he is though. Even if they do and he gets hurt on his first play, so what, it was worth a shot.

I just think this whole thing about not creating a QB contraversy is stupid though. What is the contraversy? Orton sucks. There is nothing to debate. Blake and Grossman might suck just as much, but you don't know till you try. There is no chemistry to ruin, because the Bears have no chemistry on Offense. And, I'm sick of this, you can't play more than one QB stuff. These are professionals, we shouldn't be worried about hurting feelings and bruising egos.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the real question is how bad are the Bears going to tank it in the playoffs this year?


[/ QUOTE ] Give me an NFC team that is a clear favorite over the Bears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seahawks

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the real question is how bad are the Bears going to tank it in the playoffs this year?


[/ QUOTE ] Give me an NFC team that is a clear favorite over the Bears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seahawks

[/ QUOTE ]

They'd certainly be the favorite, but among the NFC playoff teams, pretty much anyone beating anyone should not come as a suprise.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

The Bears this year remind me of this team with a worse offense. I say slowly work Grossman into the rotation.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

FREE JEFF....BLAKE!?!

Orton has been the worst regular QB this season. They really have nothing to lose.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Bears this year remind me of this team with a worse offense. I say slowly work Grossman into the rotation.

[/ QUOTE ]

And a better defense. If you look and the difference in defense rank and in the game scores for the two seasons, there really isn't all that much in common.

I say, as soon as Grossman is good to go, throw him right in there.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

yep...fair enough...that defense was good, but this one is better

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

What I didn't realize though, till i looked at your link, was just how much better that 2001 offense was? Where is Jim Miller when you need him?

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Where is Jim Miller when you need him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe it but this makes sense.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
and yesterday anyway the pass protection was real bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than yesterday the O-Line has played extremly well. They are not recieving nearly enough credit for the Bears success. Thomas Jones & Adrian Peterson are having great seasons thanks to the run blocking by this unit.

During the winning streak, Orton has been relativley untouched. I can't count how many times Orton has sat in the pocket for 5 or 6 seconds before throwing. The O-Line completley dominated the Panthers very solid D-Line. John Tait made Julius Peppers become virtually invisible.

This line is night and day from the joke of a front 5 that was out their last season. Amazingly, it's most of the same guys, they've just improved greatly in the off-season.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

MyTurn2Raise,

The 2001 divisional game where the Eagles waltzed into Chicago and pummled the Bears senseless was one of my favorite Eagles games of all time. Thanks for bringing it up.

-Fink

P.S. I have nothing to add to this thread, except to bring up painful memories for CHI fans because my birds suck this year and I need something to boost my morale.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
MyTurn2Raise,

The 2001 divisional game where the Eagles waltzed into Chicago and pummled the Bears senseless was one of my favorite Eagles games of all time. Thanks for bringing it up.

-Fink

P.S. I have nothing to add to this thread, except to bring up painful memories for CHI fans because my birds suck this year and I need something to boost my morale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, it was great how Hugh Douglas takes a cheap shot at Jim Miller and ruins any chance the Bears have of winning the game.

It's great when a new rule is put into place and you can pin point the one play that caused the rule change. Thanks to Douglas's cheap shot you can't touch the QB after an INT, unless he's trying to make a tackle.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

PokerFink, it's one of my favorite games ever too.
I forever [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] the Eagles for it.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

If Grossman gets healthy and get reps, you need to figure out whether or not he's better than Orton. You don't need a good QB in Grossman, you just need someone better than Orton going to the playoffs.

Oh, and the Giants are the best team in the NFC, but they may not get that bye. Come on Seahawks...

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The 2001 divisional game where the Eagles waltzed into Chicago and pummled the Bears senseless was one of my favorite Eagles games of all time. Thanks for bringing it up.


[/ QUOTE ] Wow and I thought I had a fuzzy memory of this game.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the real question is how bad are the Bears going to tank it in the playoffs this year?


[/ QUOTE ]Give me an NFC team that is a clear favorite over the Bears.


[/ QUOTE ] Seahawks

[/ QUOTE ]
Harder to agrgue with after last night. The Seahawks team I saw against the Giants could not beat the Bears.

I'm not sure if last night's game was just one of those where the Eagles quit and now the Seahawks will think they are better than they are or if the Seahawks played well made the Eagles quit and picked up the confidence they need for the playoffs.

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

I think there's some problem with the play calling in the Redzone. Orton simply is always throwing it inside the 5, and he's not that good at it, meaning FG after FG. The concept doesn't even make sense to me given their strengths at RB. Don't believe it? Here's the lengths of Orton's 9 TD passes this year:

28,8,3,2,9,23,4,3,1

Thats right...7 TD passes inside the 10 yard line. FGs kicked by Chicago from 20-29 yards: 6 (3 in the past 3 weeks). Last rushing TD was in week TEN - thats three straight games with no rushing TDs for a team with a clearly strong rushing game.

I dunno who is deciding that Orton needs to be firing passes at the goal line constantly, but he's not that good at it. In the first 5 games of the year, Jones has 4 TDs under 5 yards. I am just mystified every time I watch them inside the 10. Here's a sample from their recent play:

1st-3, GB3 15:00 K. Orton incomplete pass to the right
2nd-3, GB3 14:34 T. Jones rushed to the left for no gain
3rd-3, GB3 14:28 K. Orton incomplete pass to the right

Why is Orton being told to throw the ball twice from inside the 3? Do they seriously believe their Oline/Jones can't get in from there with three chances?

Re: Why not Grossman?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno who is deciding that Orton needs to be firing passes at the goal line constantly, but he's not that good at it. In the first 5 games of the year, Jones has 4 TDs under 5 yards. I am just mystified every time I watch them inside the 10.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is Ron Turner's typical play calling. He likes to do the opposite of what you expect. If everyone is loaded up for the run he likes to playaction. The Packers were ready for that this past week. I would expect Jones has a few more TDs in the next few weeks as Safeties and SLBs stay on their block longer.

The Wade Controversy
 

Kyle Orton is the NFL QB style of the future. When Kyle gets sacked think of how much more time is run off of the clock v throwing an incomplete pass. Those sacks and all the running the bears are forced to do has been a major factor in not giving the other team an extra chance at the end of the game when the defense is getting tired. When Vick came into the league, every team ran out to get their very own running back/QB. And where did that get Atlanta? No where. Vicks passing game was just a little to good. If he was a worse passer the 2 offense would be similiar. Solid running backs and no passing. The Bears are playing fundemental football, thanks to Ortons stratigic abilities. Orton can take a snap, he can change the play from a passing play to a running play at the line of scrimage, and he can take a sack. Even if the bears have a good QB, how hard is it gonna be to just double team Mushin. Forget the passing game. Just like the white sox went with fundemental baseball, the bears are going with fundemental football. Running and Dfense and Special Teams. Forget about Grossman and Blake, let the rest of the NFL worry about finding the next Farve or Manning. But do think about the punt and kick return. Thats really the only controversy in Chicago. Who can they put in that is as dangerous as bobby Wade is for insane return, but not as dangerous to fumble. SuperBowl bound team with a Good Returner.

Re: The Wade Controversy
 

LMAO. post of the year.

Re: The Wade Controversy
 

[ QUOTE ]
LMAO. post of the year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The Wade Controversy
 

Jerry Angelo? Is that you?

Re: The Wade Controversy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LMAO. post of the year.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

...it's just so awesome.