Week 13: Bears vs. Minnesota - Sunday, Dec 3, 12 pm CST

[USSoccer]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

because sometimes a change is in order? plus, you cant do worse than a 0 rating.

 

Change for changes sake isn't always the right decision.

 

If Matt Murton goes 2-23 over the course of a few games, is it right to yank him and play Angel Pagan?

 

Of course it isn't. Young players go through bad stretches. You stick with him. You need to actually commit to developing a player, and not ditch him as soon as adversity happens.

[Soul]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

It's about degrees of bad.

I only wish Grossman was merely bad, unfortunately he has been worse than bad.

 

I would argue that this is *PRECISELY* why we signed Griese. To come in if Rex is struggling this badly.

[USSoccer]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

because it seems pretty reasonable that he will be less bad. if orton was starting and playing this way, would you be saying "leave him in, griese is bad too?"

 

Orton doesn't have a chance to be a long term solution at that position. Grossman does.

 

This is the kind of thinking that leads to teams never developing young players at skill positions. You have to have more patience than this.

[USSoccer]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

It's about degrees of bad.

I only wish Grossman was merely bad, unfortunately he has been worse than bad.

 

I would argue that this is *PRECISELY* why we signed Griese. To come in if Rex is struggling this badly.

 

No. They signed him to come in if Rex got hurt.

[Soul]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

It's about degrees of bad.

I only wish Grossman was merely bad, unfortunately he has been worse than bad.

 

I would argue that this is *PRECISELY* why we signed Griese. To come in if Rex is struggling this badly.

 

No. They signed him to come in if Rex got hurt.

 

That's not the only reason.

[Butterscup1679666578]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

because sometimes a change is in order? plus, you cant do worse than a 0 rating.

 

Change for changes sake isn't always the right decision.

 

If Matt Murton goes 2-23 over the course of a few games, is it right to yank him and play Angel Pagan?

 

Of course it isn't. Young players go through bad stretches. You stick with him. You need to actually commit to developing a player, and not ditch him as soon as adversity happens.

 

There's a huge difference between a slump/bad play as a hitter compared to a slump/bad play as a quarterback.

[USSoccer]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

It's about degrees of bad.

I only wish Grossman was merely bad, unfortunately he has been worse than bad.

 

I would argue that this is *PRECISELY* why we signed Griese. To come in if Rex is struggling this badly.

 

No. They signed him to come in if Rex got hurt.

 

That's not the only reason.

 

I disagree, and so would Angelo and Lovie.

[Brian]

Outside of the two interceptions were there any other mistakes? I know they were big mistakes but come on, it's not passing weather.

[jjgman21]

I do not think Grossman is playing good by any means. but I think his play can be defended. there are essentiall three plays that all the hub bub is about today:

 

missing wide open Moose - looked to me like Moose took too long to comeout of his second move. by that time Grossman looked to Dez and put the ball where it should be, but Dez wasn't hungry for the catch, waited for it to get to him, and the DB tipped it away.

 

int at the 20ish - I'd say 9 out of 10 QBs make the same mistake. the only one's that don't are the freakishly tall who would not have lost track of the LB.

 

int on the deep ball - it was well discussed. bad decision to try to go that deep on a day like today, but Berrian was open and let the DB have the play.

[Jon]

Let's not forget that Grossman only has 9 pass attempts and hasn't turned it over in Bears territory. And how many of those were just to get rid of the ball?

 

While he clearly made the wrong read on the Napoleon Harris interception. It's not like he has been holding this offense back today.

[USSoccer]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

because sometimes a change is in order? plus, you cant do worse than a 0 rating.

 

Change for changes sake isn't always the right decision.

 

If Matt Murton goes 2-23 over the course of a few games, is it right to yank him and play Angel Pagan?

 

Of course it isn't. Young players go through bad stretches. You stick with him. You need to actually commit to developing a player, and not ditch him as soon as adversity happens.

 

There's a huge difference between a slump/bad play as a hitter compared to a slump/bad play as a quarterback.

 

not really.

[Soul]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

It's about degrees of bad.

I only wish Grossman was merely bad, unfortunately he has been worse than bad.

 

I would argue that this is *PRECISELY* why we signed Griese. To come in if Rex is struggling this badly.

 

No. They signed him to come in if Rex got hurt.

 

That's not the only reason.

 

I disagree, and so would Angelo and Lovie.

 

We'll see about that. There will come a point if things don't improve. We are fast approaching that point.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Let's not forget that Grossman only has 9 pass attempts and hasn't turned it over in Bears territory. And how many of those were just to get rid of the ball?

 

But he did throw a pick in the red zone, which IMO is worse than throwing it in your own territory.

[treebird]

There's a huge difference between a slump/bad play as a hitter compared to a slump/bad play as a quarterback.

 

not really.

 

It's an awful lot easier to hide a slumping number 7 hitter than it is to hide a slumping qb.

[USSoccer]

There's a huge difference between a slump/bad play as a hitter compared to a slump/bad play as a quarterback.

 

not really.

 

It's an awful lot easier to hide a slumping number 7 hitter than it is to hide a slumping qb.

 

it is easier to do when your OC refuses to call plays designed to give him some momentum.

 

call some slants, curls and rollouts.

Edited December 3, 2006 by USSoccer

[jjgman21]

There's a huge difference between a slump/bad play as a hitter compared to a slump/bad play as a quarterback.

 

not really.

 

It's an awful lot easier to hide a slumping number 7 hitter than it is to hide a slumping qb.

 

no it isn't. you just need an O coordinator willing to do so. are you really going to argue the Bears didn't effectively hide Orton last year? same damn thing.

[Butterscup1679666578]

the griese jokes are lame.

 

the only magical power griese might possess over grossman is the amazing ability to have a qb rating higher than zero.

 

Tree, the choice is between a young bad and an older, veteran bad. Why go with the older bad?

 

because sometimes a change is in order? plus, you cant do worse than a 0 rating.

 

Change for changes sake isn't always the right decision.

 

If Matt Murton goes 2-23 over the course of a few games, is it right to yank him and play Angel Pagan?

 

Of course it isn't. Young players go through bad stretches. You stick with him. You need to actually commit to developing a player, and not ditch him as soon as adversity happens.

 

There's a huge difference between a slump/bad play as a hitter compared to a slump/bad play as a quarterback.

 

not really.

 

Yes, really. If you're in a hitting slump, you have 7-8 other guys that can hit and produce runs. If you're QB is playing poorly, what are you going to do? You can't run the ball every play. He's the general of your offense. There is definitely a huge difference in the two.

[Jon]

Let's not forget that Grossman only has 9 pass attempts and hasn't turned it over in Bears territory. And how many of those were just to get rid of the ball?

 

But he did throw a pick in the red zone, which IMO is worse than throwing it in your own territory.

You'd rather give the opposition a full set of downs to try to put up 7 than lose a chance to likely only put up 3?

[RynoRules]

USS, those are horrible arguments.

 

You can't compare baseball position players to football players. Completely different in almost every aspect, particularly at the QB position.

 

 

You're arguments that Griese's only job is to carry the clipboard until Grossman gets mamed is without support. Show me where Lovie and Jerry said that. What's more, even if they did, that's a horrendous philosophy and you know it.

 

Grossman is playing on a team that has talent enough to win a SB if he just plays avg. He is playing WELL BELOW avg. This is a team that is ready to win NOW, not two years from now like the Titans (Vince Young) or the Cards (Leinart). We can't have patience with Rex b/c windows in the NFL close too quickly.

 

Right now he looks like another Bears' QB who recently wore the no. 8...

[jjgman21]

 

I disagree, and so would Angelo and Lovie.

 

We'll see about that. There will come a point if things don't improve. We are fast approaching that point.

 

I would agree if the Bears were run by reactionary fans, but they are not. they'll dial the offense down to what they would run should Griese be playing before just benching Grossman and bringing in Griese.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Let's not forget that Grossman only has 9 pass attempts and hasn't turned it over in Bears territory. And how many of those were just to get rid of the ball?

 

But he did throw a pick in the red zone, which IMO is worse than throwing it in your own territory.

You'd rather give the opposition a full set of downs to try to put up 7 than lose a chance to likely only put up 3?

 

Honestly, I was thinking about this before I posted, and I'm not sure, especially with our defense.

[RynoRules]

There's a huge difference between a slump/bad play as a hitter compared to a slump/bad play as a quarterback.

 

not really.

 

It's an awful lot easier to hide a slumping number 7 hitter than it is to hide a slumping qb.

 

no it isn't. you just need an O coordinator willing to do so. are you really going to argue the Bears didn't effectively hide Orton last year? same damn thing.

 

Another terrible idea - we should hide him through play calling? How long before defenses start teeing off on that?

[Soul]

Let's not forget that Grossman only has 9 pass attempts and hasn't turned it over in Bears territory. And how many of those were just to get rid of the ball?

 

But he did throw a pick in the red zone, which IMO is worse than throwing it in your own territory.

You'd rather give the opposition a full set of downs to try to put up 7 than lose a chance to likely only put up 3?

 

No, I'd rather have a QB that doesn't throw 2 INTs on successive passes though. Something better than a 0 QB rating would be nice. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

[jjgman21]

There's a huge difference between a slump/bad play as a hitter compared to a slump/bad play as a quarterback.

 

not really.

 

It's an awful lot easier to hide a slumping number 7 hitter than it is to hide a slumping qb.

 

no it isn't. you just need an O coordinator willing to do so. are you really going to argue the Bears didn't effectively hide Orton last year? same damn thing.

 

Another terrible idea - we should hide him through play calling? How long before defenses start teeing off on that?

 

ah, so let Griese throw the ball down the field. Brilliant!

[USSoccer]

There's a huge difference between a slump/bad play as a hitter compared to a slump/bad play as a quarterback.

 

not really.

 

It's an awful lot easier to hide a slumping number 7 hitter than it is to hide a slumping qb.

 

no it isn't. you just need an O coordinator willing to do so. are you really going to argue the Bears didn't effectively hide Orton last year? same damn thing.

 

Another terrible idea - we should hide him through play calling? How long before defenses start teeing off on that?

 

all Rex needs is to get a little momentum, a little confidence back. Dialing the offense back for a drive or two is not going to allow defenses to dial in on them.