The Chicago Bears Preseason Thread

[Banedon]

 

Kyle is a low risk low reward QB.

 

reeaaally? how so? maybe in public opinion, but Orton can be just as volitable as Grossman, and they have virtually the same contract.

 

He wasn't talking about contract. He was saying that Kyle's highs aren't as high as Rex's, and his lows aren't as low as Rex's.

[Soul]

Let's just pick up Garcia after Favre signs with Tampa.

Oops.

 

Yeah. And I'm not real excited about the prospect of Pennington and his noodle arm, either.

 

Doesn't really matter anyway. Did anyone hear what Angelo said when asked about Chris Williams? Apparently (I heard this on the radio a couple minutes ago) Angelo was asked why Chris Williams hasn't even been at practice recently. Has he had his back looked at by a specialist? Maybe some kind of treatment?

 

Nope.

 

Chris Williams hasn't been at practice because he can't stand all the way through the practice.

 

At this point it's beyond unbelievable. Surely there was something the Bears should have known about this guy before they drafted him.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Kyle is a low risk low reward QB.

 

reeaaally? how so? maybe in public opinion, but Orton can be just as volitable as Grossman, and they have virtually the same contract.

 

He wasn't talking about contract. He was saying that Kyle's highs aren't as high as Rex's, and his lows aren't as low as Rex's.

 

Yeah, I don't understand why people compare Kyle's worst moments as a rookie with Grossman's worst days as a veteran. Sure, they've both laid big eggs. But Orton as a veteran QB with some skill and experience isn't going to be the same guy he was as a rookie, and he's not going to be anything like Rex Grossman in 2006, neither the early MVP candidate or the guy who looked like an abomination. He's not going to have ratings of 140+ followed by 10's and 20's. Orton is probably going to be a guy who occasionally has a game with a 100 rating, but is usually in the 70's, with his stinkers being in the 40-50 range. Yes, as a rookie he had a few games worse than that, but he was a rookie, and that was expected.

 

I don't see why people have a problem thinking of Rex as more high risk high reward, with Orton being safer. I'd rather have the high reward guy if I was comfortable that he could limit the risk, but I can see why the Bears would go with either of the two.

[Burtonbell]

 

Yeah, I don't understand why people compare Kyle's worst moments as a rookie with Grossman's worst days as a veteran. Sure, they've both laid big eggs. But Orton as a veteran QB with some skill and experience isn't going to be the same guy he was as a rookie, and he's not going to be anything like Rex Grossman in 2006, neither the early MVP candidate or the guy who looked like an abomination. He's not going to have ratings of 140+ followed by 10's and 20's. Orton is probably going to be a guy who occasionally has a game with a 100 rating, but is usually in the 70's, with his stinkers being in the 40-50 range. Yes, as a rookie he had a few games worse than that, but he was a rookie, and that was expected.

 

I don't see why people have a problem thinking of Rex as more high risk high reward, with Orton being safer. I'd rather have the high reward guy if I was comfortable that he could limit the risk, but I can see why the Bears would go with either of the two.

 

Yes. This.

[UMFan83]

 

Yeah, I don't understand why people compare Kyle's worst moments as a rookie with Grossman's worst days as a veteran. Sure, they've both laid big eggs. But Orton as a veteran QB with some skill and experience isn't going to be the same guy he was as a rookie, and he's not going to be anything like Rex Grossman in 2006, neither the early MVP candidate or the guy who looked like an abomination. He's not going to have ratings of 140+ followed by 10's and 20's. Orton is probably going to be a guy who occasionally has a game with a 100 rating, but is usually in the 70's, with his stinkers being in the 40-50 range. Yes, as a rookie he had a few games worse than that, but he was a rookie, and that was expected.

 

I don't see why people have a problem thinking of Rex as more high risk high reward, with Orton being safer. I'd rather have the high reward guy if I was comfortable that he could limit the risk, but I can see why the Bears would go with either of the two.

 

Yes. This.

 

If we had a good O-Line, a solid proven RB, and at least one dependable WR, it makes sense to try the high risk guy. If you're the Bears, and you have none of these things but a good defense and presumably a good special teams, it makes a lot of sense to use the low risk guy.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Yeah, I don't understand why people compare Kyle's worst moments as a rookie with Grossman's worst days as a veteran. Sure, they've both laid big eggs. But Orton as a veteran QB with some skill and experience isn't going to be the same guy he was as a rookie, and he's not going to be anything like Rex Grossman in 2006, neither the early MVP candidate or the guy who looked like an abomination. He's not going to have ratings of 140+ followed by 10's and 20's. Orton is probably going to be a guy who occasionally has a game with a 100 rating, but is usually in the 70's, with his stinkers being in the 40-50 range. Yes, as a rookie he had a few games worse than that, but he was a rookie, and that was expected.

 

I don't see why people have a problem thinking of Rex as more high risk high reward, with Orton being safer. I'd rather have the high reward guy if I was comfortable that he could limit the risk, but I can see why the Bears would go with either of the two.

 

Yes. This.

 

If we had a good O-Line, a solid proven RB, and at least one dependable WR, it makes sense to try the high risk guy. If you're the Bears, and you have none of these things but a good defense and presumably a good special teams, it makes a lot of sense to use the low risk guy.

 

Actually, if you have a good line and solid running game then a safer QB is probably good enough to take you a long way. A team that is all defense and special teams, then if you have any hope of going far, you are going to need a QB who can make some plays.

[ctcf]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

[Guest]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

 

Miss the first half of 2006?

[ctcf]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

 

Miss the first half of 2006?

 

Nope.

[Banedon]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

 

Miss the first half of 2006?

 

Nope.

 

So you thought he did poorly the first half of 2006?

[UMFan83]

 

Yeah, I don't understand why people compare Kyle's worst moments as a rookie with Grossman's worst days as a veteran. Sure, they've both laid big eggs. But Orton as a veteran QB with some skill and experience isn't going to be the same guy he was as a rookie, and he's not going to be anything like Rex Grossman in 2006, neither the early MVP candidate or the guy who looked like an abomination. He's not going to have ratings of 140+ followed by 10's and 20's. Orton is probably going to be a guy who occasionally has a game with a 100 rating, but is usually in the 70's, with his stinkers being in the 40-50 range. Yes, as a rookie he had a few games worse than that, but he was a rookie, and that was expected.

 

I don't see why people have a problem thinking of Rex as more high risk high reward, with Orton being safer. I'd rather have the high reward guy if I was comfortable that he could limit the risk, but I can see why the Bears would go with either of the two.

 

Yes. This.

 

If we had a good O-Line, a solid proven RB, and at least one dependable WR, it makes sense to try the high risk guy. If you're the Bears, and you have none of these things but a good defense and presumably a good special teams, it makes a lot of sense to use the low risk guy.

 

Actually, if you have a good line and solid running game then a safer QB is probably good enough to take you a long way. A team that is all defense and special teams, then if you have any hope of going far, you are going to need a QB who can make some plays.

 

I see your point, but I'd still really have the safer QB with a really good defense. If the defense plays like it did in 2005, I don't want a QB that will throw a lot of INTs that leads to extra drives for the defense and eventually wears them out. Also I don't want a QB who is going to throw an INT in the red zone right after the D makes a big play to get a turnover.

[jersey cubs fan]

I see your point, but I'd still really have the safer QB with a really good defense. If the defense plays like it did in 2005, I don't want a QB that will throw a lot of INTs that leads to extra drives for the defense and eventually wears them out. Also I don't want a QB who is going to throw an INT in the red zone right after the D makes a big play to get a turnover.

 

It's a matter of taste, and that's why it makes perfect sense to me why the Bears are taking their time deciding which one is their guy.

[ctcf]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

 

Miss the first half of 2006?

 

Nope.

 

So you thought he did poorly the first half of 2006?

 

No, but then I watched him be mediocre at best since then. I'd say the risk outweighs the reward with him

[jersey cubs fan]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

 

Miss the first half of 2006?

 

Nope.

 

So you thought he did poorly the first half of 2006?

 

No, but then I watched him be mediocre at best since then. I'd say the risk outweighs the reward with him

 

This is counter to what you said before. His risk may outweigh the reward, it probably does actually, but that doesn't mean there isn't any chance of high reward.

[Guest]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

 

Miss the first half of 2006?

 

Nope.

 

So you thought he did poorly the first half of 2006?

 

No, but then I watched him be mediocre at best since then. I'd say the risk outweighs the reward with him

 

That's not what you said in the original post.

[ctcf]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

 

Miss the first half of 2006?

 

Nope.

 

So you thought he did poorly the first half of 2006?

 

No, but then I watched him be mediocre at best since then. I'd say the risk outweighs the reward with him

 

That's not what you said in the original post.

 

What?

[Guest]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

 

Miss the first half of 2006?

 

Nope.

 

So you thought he did poorly the first half of 2006?

 

No, but then I watched him be mediocre at best since then. I'd say the risk outweighs the reward with him

 

That's not what you said in the original post.

 

What?

 

In the first post, you said you couldn't wrap your head around Rex Grossman being "high reward" in any way and then in the next post, you said the risk outweighs the reward. Those are two completely different thoughts.

[ctcf]

I still can't wrap my mind around thinking Rex Grossman is "high reward" in any way.

 

Miss the first half of 2006?

 

Nope.

 

So you thought he did poorly the first half of 2006?

 

No, but then I watched him be mediocre at best since then. I'd say the risk outweighs the reward with him

 

That's not what you said in the original post.

 

What?

 

In the first post, you said you couldn't wrap your head around Rex Grossman being "high reward" in any way and then in the next post, you said the risk outweighs the reward. Those are two completely different thoughts.

 

I suppose I misspoke a bit. I meant that as simply being that any reward he might pose (which at this point I don't expect to be high at all) is outweighed by his risk (which I will certainly admit is high!).

[Jon]

That completion to the Bears' 5 was definitely incomplete. It was jarred loose and the ball hit the ground.

[Jon]

That was pitiful, defense. Not only did they give up the score, there's just 6:15 left on the clock and the offense has plenty of work they need to do.

[UMFan83]

Geez. I know its preseason, but that was just horrible. We really needed to see a lot of the offense and we just lost a lot of time to work on it.

[UMFan83]

Anyone else think we should give Windy City Football another shot? We had some pretty good discussions/game threads in there last year.

[UMFan83]

Gotta keep telling myself that preseason results aren't the end of the world.

[cubweiser03]

Tom Thayer reported that Chris Williams had back surgery to repair a herniated disc. It shouldnt be season ending and Tom said he had the same thing done in one of his off seasons and came back fine. Still a downer as i was interested to see what Williams could do.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Tom Thayer reported that Chris Williams had back surgery to repair a herniated disc. It shouldnt be season ending and Tom said he had the same thing done in one of his off seasons and came back fine. Still a downer as i was interested to see what Williams could do.

 

jesus