Week 14: Bears vs. St. Louis - Monday Dec 11, 7:30 pm CST

[Banedon]

I love how Rick Morrissey believes that if Rex didn't complete that TD pass to Berrian, that Rex would have been out in the second half.

[RynoRules]

For Rex, the Hex is over. For one night at least, Grossman ended his seven-week slump.

 

 

 

Why?

 

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

 

 

Why do people keep lumping in the 2 NY games and the San Francisco game into the discussion about Rex's bad games? Why? Why are they so utterly incompetent to make this mistake over and over again? Why can't they see that Rex's game log looks like this:

 

Good

Great

Okay

Very Good

Very Good

Terrible

Great

Terrible

Very Good

Good

Terrible

Terrible

Good

 

How hard is it to see this? He has not had a 7-game slump. He went into the Meadowlands where he outplayed both Eli Manning and Chad Pennington, both more respected QBs than himself, not to mention, he had better games than Tony Romo, the annointed one.

 

This is getting regoddamndiculous.

 

I only worry that Rex will pull out a "Terrible" in the playoffs. If he had 9 "Okays", 3 "Goods", and 3 "Very Goods", and one "Terrible" over a 16 game schedule, that would make me more comfortable. As it stands, he has had three "Terribles" in 13 games. Makes me a bit nervous.

[goonys evil twin]

I really don't care at this point, Rex saved his job and he's showing he can play under tough circumstances.

 

I probably shouldn't care, but it's getting disgusting how repetitively inaccurate these buffoons have been on this issue. It's painfully obvious how wrong they are. It's not like he was putting up 10/22, 150 yards and no TDs in the non-bad games. He actually lit up some teams and produced in the others. It's become a runaway train. It's typical "say it enough times and it's got to be true" stuff that is driving me nuts.

[goonys evil twin]

I only worry that Rex will pull out a "Terrible" in the playoffs. If he had 9 "Okays", 3 "Goods", and 3 "Very Goods", and one "Terrible" over a 16 game schedule, that would make me more comfortable. As it stands, he has had three "Terribles" in 13 games. Makes me a bit nervous.

 

That's fine. I'm nervous. It's fine to be nervous and to question Rex. It's fine to point out his inconsistency. My problem is ESPN's continued insistence that Rex Grossman has had 2 awful months and is coming off a 7 week slump. It's an absurd notion.

 

If this was Dallas, either NY team, New England, or even the Redskins, they would not be making these blatant errors.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I really don't care at this point, Rex saved his job and he's showing he can play under tough circumstances.

 

I probably shouldn't care, but it's getting disgusting how repetitively inaccurate these buffoons have been on this issue. It's painfully obvious how wrong they are. It's not like he was putting up 10/22, 150 yards and no TDs in the non-bad games. He actually lit up some teams and produced in the others. It's become a runaway train. It's typical "say it enough times and it's got to be true" stuff that is driving me nuts.

 

No, I understand.

 

I also know these talking heads are pretty stupid/don't care about the Bears, etc. so it helps me not get caught up. The Chicago media upsets me more.

[hardcorecubfan]

Did anybody else get tired of hearing about New Orleans Saints win and how hot they are. What a stupid PC discussion. Let's make them feel good because of Katrina.

 

No, actually I'm not nauseated by it. I would be if I didn't think they're legit. But I do.

 

That was a huge road win Sunday. NO is definitely a legitimate contender.

 

it was almost as if they had to discuss it out of the guilt from Katrina

[Balsa]

Did anybody else get tired of hearing about New Orleans Saints win and how hot they are. What a stupid PC discussion. Let's make them feel good because of Katrina.

 

No, actually I'm not nauseated by it. I would be if I didn't think they're legit. But I do.

 

That was a huge road win Sunday. NO is definitely a legitimate contender.

 

it was almost as if they had to discuss it out of the guilt from Katrina

I think that's a huge stretch. It was a game between two of the hottest teams in football, and it was a rout. Of course they're gonna talk about it.

[TruffleShuffle]

For Rex, the Hex is over. For one night at least, Grossman ended his seven-week slump.

 

 

 

Why?

 

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

WHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHYWHY

 

 

Why do people keep lumping in the 2 NY games and the San Francisco game into the discussion about Rex's bad games? Why? Why are they so utterly incompetent to make this mistake over and over again?

 

It's not incompetent. He had four atrocious games in a seven game stretch. It wasn't like there were three good games, two average and two lousy. Most QBs don't have two games that they're that bad - he had four in seven games. I don't know what his QB rating was during that stretch, but it's probably below 50. If a baseball player has 12 bad games and 3 good games, it gets called a 15 game slump because he probably is hitting .150 during that period. That's what they're doing with Grossman.

[goonys evil twin]

It's not incompetent. He had four atrocious games in a seven game stretch. It wasn't like there were three good games, two average and two lousy. Most QBs don't have two games that they're that bad - he had four in seven games. I don't know what his QB rating was during that stretch, but it's probably below 50. If a baseball player has 12 bad games and 3 good games, it gets called a 15 game slump because he probably is hitting .150 during that period. That's what they're doing with Grossman.

 

Baseball isn't football, that's a terrible analogy. The media has acted as if the NY games were bad, and the San Francisco games didn't happen. For other QBs, Eli for one, they are more than willing to describe it as inconsistent. Eli had 5 straight games with a rating below 80, 7 with a sub 100. The longest Rex went with a sub 80 rating was 2 games, and only 3 with a sub 100.

 

Only a clueless moron would call that a 7 game slump. It's called inconsistent results. If you want to try the baseball analogy it's more like a starter throwing a complete game shut, then getting rocked in 2 innings, following that up with a 8 inning 1 run outing, a 4 inning 5 run outing, a 7 inning 2 run outing, a 6 run 3 inning outing, then 2 more shellackings. Incompetent journalists would lump that into a long slump. People with a brain would call that inconsistent.

 

There's a clear distinction.

[woodchip2153]

It's not incompetent. He had four atrocious games in a seven game stretch. It wasn't like there were three good games, two average and two lousy. Most QBs don't have two games that they're that bad - he had four in seven games. I don't know what his QB rating was during that stretch, but it's probably below 50. If a baseball player has 12 bad games and 3 good games, it gets called a 15 game slump because he probably is hitting .150 during that period. That's what they're doing with Grossman.

 

Baseball isn't football, that's a terrible analogy. The media has acted as if the NY games were bad, and the San Francisco games didn't happen. For other QBs, Eli for one, they are more than willing to describe it as inconsistent. Eli had 5 straight games with a rating below 80, 7 with a sub 100. The longest Rex went with a sub 80 rating was 2 games, and only 3 with a sub 100.

 

Only a clueless moron would call that a 7 game slump. It's called inconsistent results. If you want to try the baseball analogy it's more like a starter throwing a complete game shut, then getting rocked in 2 innings, following that up with a 8 inning 1 run outing, a 4 inning 5 run outing, a 7 inning 2 run outing, a 6 run 3 inning outing, then 2 more shellackings. Incompetent journalists would lump that into a long slump. People with a brain would call that inconsistent.

 

There's a clear distinction.

 

So in other words, Rex has been Jason Marguis like. [joking]

[TruffleShuffle]

It's not incompetent. He had four atrocious games in a seven game stretch. It wasn't like there were three good games, two average and two lousy. Most QBs don't have two games that they're that bad - he had four in seven games. I don't know what his QB rating was during that stretch, but it's probably below 50. If a baseball player has 12 bad games and 3 good games, it gets called a 15 game slump because he probably is hitting .150 during that period. That's what they're doing with Grossman.

 

Baseball isn't football, that's a terrible analogy. The media has acted as if the NY games were bad, and the San Francisco games didn't happen. For other QBs, Eli for one, they are more than willing to describe it as inconsistent. Eli had 5 straight games with a rating below 80, 7 with a sub 100. The longest Rex went with a sub 80 rating was 2 games, and only 3 with a sub 100.

 

Only a clueless moron would call that a 7 game slump. It's called inconsistent results. If you want to try the baseball analogy it's more like a starter throwing a complete game shut, then getting rocked in 2 innings, following that up with a 8 inning 1 run outing, a 4 inning 5 run outing, a 7 inning 2 run outing, a 6 run 3 inning outing, then 2 more shellackings. Incompetent journalists would lump that into a long slump. People with a brain would call that inconsistent.

 

There's a clear distinction.

 

Well, call it what you want to call it. Find another quarterback who has four games with a rating of 36.8 or worse. Actually, find another one with three, let alone three in seven games. You'll be searching for a while.

[goonys evil twin]

Well, call it what you want to call it. Find another quarterback who has four games with a rating of 36.8 or worse. Actually, find another one with three, let alone three in seven games. You'll be searching for a while.

 

What does that have to do with the issue at hand?

 

I've acknowledged that Grossman has been awful in his awful games. How many more times do you have to hear it?

 

The point is, people with no clue, the general media and fans of other teams who aren't paying attention, just don't seem to understand that Grossman's season did not start out great and turn to crap in the 2nd half. He's been up and down from game to game in the 2nd half. He's had multiple very good games during the so-called slump. How can John Clayton claim that this game somehow ended the slump, when it wasn't any better than 2 of the other games that took place during the so-called slump? How? It can't, that's how. It hasn't been a slump, a slump is prolonged poor play, not inconsistent sometimes great, sometimes terrible, sometimes good.

[TruffleShuffle]

It hasn't been a slump, a slump is prolonged poor play, not inconsistent sometimes great, sometimes terrible, sometimes good.

 

By this definition, then I'm guessing that no quarterback ever slumps. How many guys have seven bad games in a row, or even four in a row? Can't think of any, really. Here's why I'd consider it a slump:

 

First 5 games of the season: 4 really good games, 1 mediocre, 0 awful

Next 7 games of the season: 2 really good games, 1 average, 4 awful

 

 

To me, sprinkling in some good efforts when you're killing your team in over half your games, doesn't mean it's not a slump.

[TruffleShuffle]

How can John Clayton claim that this game somehow ended the slump, when it wasn't any better than 2 of the other games that took place during the so-called slump?

 

I'll agree on this, and I don't like when baseball announcers call it a slump-buster when a guy goes 3-for-5 with a homer after he craps the bed for the better part of 20 games. Let's wait and see if it lasts.

[goonys evil twin]

It hasn't been a slump, a slump is prolonged poor play, not inconsistent sometimes great, sometimes terrible, sometimes good.

 

By this definition, then I'm guessing that no quarterback ever slumps. How many guys have seven bad games in a row, or even four in a row? Can't think of any, really.

 

Eli Manning.

 

And it doesn't have to be 5 or 7 games. Had Clayton called it a 2 game slump, he'd be correct. Likewise Favre just ended a 3 game slump.

 

A 7 game slump consists of 7 bad games, and there's no way it includes very good games in which the QB throws for multiple TDs, barely any INTs, the team wins by double digits and he has ratings over 100. If you have one game in which the QB has a rating over 100, it's impossible to claim that was part of a slump. Let alone if you have 3.

[UMFan83]

At least they are calling it a slump rather then a fluke.

 

A slump indicates that the person making the comment believes that the player is better to whatever extent then the way they are playing.

 

A fluke means that yesterday's game is an abberation and has little chance of happening again with any consistancy.