|
|
#11
12-05-2005, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why not Grossman?
[ QUOTE ]
you mean 68yds passing isn't good? [/ QUOTE ] It's too good. 
|
|
#12
12-05-2005, 05:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#13
12-05-2005, 05:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#14
12-05-2005, 05:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#15
12-05-2005, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#16
12-05-2005, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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
|
|
#17
12-05-2005, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#20
12-05-2005, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
