Bears offseason

[Guest]

Our over/under is 5 wins. I don't see us being far off from that. And even our front 7 defense strength has holes. Freeman isn't young, Trevathan has to come back from a very serious injury, McPhee has been hurt, Floyd already has two concussions.....

 

We're not very far along. And the front 7 and/or our OL, with an injury prone Long and 2 mediocre tackles could wind up as spots we need to address early next year in the draft.....

 

see what I mean?

 

No. We should NOT be bad for that long. But, you overestimate our talent level, even in those areas. This team still needs a LOT of help.

 

You think they're not tanking this year, how many wins do you see?

 

depends on how our QB plays and who it is.

 

as I've said before, teams like Denver and Minnesota, teams without holes on defense, and teams like Houston, with monsters everywhere on defense, still miss the playoffs or get destroyed once they get there. they have put meticulous planning into their supporting players, and Houston and Minnesota actually gave up a ton for lackluster quarterbacks in a panic. They thought that their time had come, and that they just needed satisfactory QBs in order to waltz into the playoffs and blow teams away with their supporting cast.

 

the best team planning, the most meticulous attention to detail when constructing a roster, falls apart if you don't have a QB to lead them. And the Packers have been successful with little more than Aaron Rodgers and a couple players here and there. your holes aren't as gaping if you have the important position covered.

[davell]

 

see what I mean?

 

No. We should NOT be bad for that long. But, you overestimate our talent level, even in those areas. This team still needs a LOT of help.

 

You think they're not tanking this year, how many wins do you see?

No, they aren't tanking. Football teams don't tank unless they have a specific QB they want to draft #1, and even then it's incredibly rare to plan to tank in the summer.

 

The problem is they are trying to win games and failing miserably at it.

 

You're right. I shouldn't said we ARE tanking. Its the end result, but its not what we're attempting.

[davell]

 

see what I mean?

 

No. We should NOT be bad for that long. But, you overestimate our talent level, even in those areas. This team still needs a LOT of help.

 

You think they're not tanking this year, how many wins do you see?

 

depends on how our QB plays and who it is.

 

as I've said before, teams like Denver and Minnesota, teams without holes on defense, and teams like Houston, with monsters everywhere on defense, still miss the playoffs or get destroyed once they get there. they have put meticulous planning into their supporting players, and Houston and Minnesota actually gave up a ton for lackluster quarterbacks in a panic. They thought that their time had come, and that they just needed satisfactory QBs in order to waltz into the playoffs and blow teams away with their supporting cast.

 

the best team planning, the most meticulous attention to detail when constructing a roster, falls apart if you don't have a QB to lead them. And the Packers have been successful with little more than Aaron Rodgers and a couple players here and there. your holes aren't as gaping if you have the important position covered.

 

I'm not about to argue how valuable a QB is. But, we COULD be an 8-10 win team with an unsettled QB outlook. We aren't. And until Trubisky(or Glennon) proves they ARE our long term guy, we're a mess, because our other talent is subpar too.

[Guest]

We literally didn't draft a guy this year who's expected to start in 2017.

 

I don't think this is true at all. I think the staff will go with Glennon until he's unsuccessful, and then Trubisky will get his chance. I don't think it will take that long for Glennon to be unsuccessful. the bears actually want to win games.

[Guest]

 

I'm not about to argue how valuable a QB is. But, we COULD be an 8-10 win team with an unsettled QB outlook. We aren't. And until Trubisky(or Glennon) proves they ARE our long term guy, we're a mess, because our other talent is subpar too.

 

they could be an 8-10 win team if they had gotten lucky enough to assemble a generationally-talented defense without a QB capable of winning games.

 

the year depends on how the QB plays, and that's it.

[Tim]

 

see what I mean?

 

No. We should NOT be bad for that long. But, you overestimate our talent level, even in those areas. This team still needs a LOT of help.

 

You think they're not tanking this year, how many wins do you see?

 

depends on how our QB plays and who it is.

 

[highlight=yellow]as I've said before, teams like Denver[/highlight] and Minnesota, teams without holes on defense, and teams like Houston, with monsters everywhere on defense, [highlight=yellow]still miss the playoffs or get destroyed once they get there[/highlight]. they have put meticulous planning into their supporting players, and Houston and Minnesota actually gave up a ton for lackluster quarterbacks in a panic. They thought that their time had come, and that they just needed satisfactory QBs in order to waltz into the playoffs and blow teams away with their supporting cast.

 

the best team planning, the most meticulous attention to detail when constructing a roster, falls apart if you don't have a QB to lead them. And the Packers have been successful with little more than Aaron Rodgers and a couple players here and there. your holes aren't as gaping if you have the important position covered.

Didn't Denver make two super bowls in a row and win one of them when they had the crippled, crumbling zombie version of Peyton Manning as QB?

 

Isn't Drew Brees one of the all-time passers (going by stats, at least) and hasn't done squat in recent years?

 

This isn't as black and white as you like to portray.

[jersey cubs fan]

Didn't Denver make two super bowls in a row and win one of them when they had the crippled, crumbling zombie version of Peyton Manning as QB?

 

Isn't Drew Brees one of the all-time passers (going by stats, at least) and hasn't done squat in recent years?

 

This isn't as black and white as you like to portray.

 

you need a damn good team to contend, and a very good QB to win consistently.

 

A damn good team can contend and win a bit (a season or two) w/o a very good QB while a very good QB isn't going to win w/o a solid surrounding class. That means either a great defense that allows him to do what he can on offense, or a bunch of weapons that allows him to outscore (sorry not sorry) the opponent.

[Banedon]

[David]

 

i mean, in the NFL, that's probably a good baseline, especially considering it's a good baseline in the world in general

[David]

i want jay on every single one of our games forever

[WrigleyField 22]

 

i mean, in the NFL, that's probably a good baseline, especially considering it's a good baseline in the world in general

On the other hand Jay's unvaccinated kids might introduce a measles pandemic.

[David]

 

i mean, in the NFL, that's probably a good baseline, especially considering it's a good baseline in the world in general

On the other hand Jay's unvaccinated kids might introduce a measles pandemic.

 

I like to think that he secretly snuck those kids to the doctor one day since he knows his wife is an idiot

[Guest]

 

No. We should NOT be bad for that long. But, you overestimate our talent level, even in those areas. This team still needs a LOT of help.

 

You think they're not tanking this year, how many wins do you see?

 

depends on how our QB plays and who it is.

 

[highlight=yellow]as I've said before, teams like Denver[/highlight] and Minnesota, teams without holes on defense, and teams like Houston, with monsters everywhere on defense, [highlight=yellow]still miss the playoffs or get destroyed once they get there[/highlight]. they have put meticulous planning into their supporting players, and Houston and Minnesota actually gave up a ton for lackluster quarterbacks in a panic. They thought that their time had come, and that they just needed satisfactory QBs in order to waltz into the playoffs and blow teams away with their supporting cast.

 

the best team planning, the most meticulous attention to detail when constructing a roster, falls apart if you don't have a QB to lead them. And the Packers have been successful with little more than Aaron Rodgers and a couple players here and there. your holes aren't as gaping if you have the important position covered.

Didn't Denver make two super bowls in a row and win one of them when they had the crippled, crumbling zombie version of Peyton Manning as QB?

 

Isn't Drew Brees one of the all-time passers (going by stats, at least) and hasn't done squat in recent years?

 

This isn't as black and white as you like to portray.

 

Peyton Manning had a year for the ages one of those years, I mean, one of the best seasons that a QB has ever had, are you kidding me?

 

The other year was more of an exception that proves the rule. Denver had to be perfect and have absolutely perfect health. Meanwhile, they still had Peyton, who wasn't physically capable, but still just as smart as anyone.

 

As for Drew Brees, the answer is simple, he's the only reason they're competitive at all, and he still keeps the Saints in the picture, by himself.

 

It is pretty black and white.

[davell]

 

Cutler interview today.....

[davell]

 

[UMFan83]

 

Cutler interview today.....

 

Oh man this is going to be the greatest thing ever.

[Guest]

I love Jay Cutler.

[Derwood]

I love Jay Cutler.

 

It's your unwavering adoration of the deeply flawed Cutler that makes me second guess your opinions on Trubisky, BTW

[davell]

I love Jay Cutler.

 

It's your unwavering adoration of the deeply flawed Cutler that makes me second guess your opinions on Trubisky, BTW

 

Cutler is the best QB the Bears have had in most(all?) our lifetimes.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I love Jay Cutler.

 

It's your unwavering adoration of the deeply flawed Cutler that makes me second guess your opinions on Trubisky, BTW

 

It's your lack of perspective towards the QB position in the city of CHICAGO that makes me realize you really are aimless on the subject

[Derwood]

I love Jay Cutler.

 

It's your unwavering adoration of the deeply flawed Cutler that makes me second guess your opinions on Trubisky, BTW

 

It's your lack of perspective towards the QB position in the city of CHICAGO that makes me realize you really are aimless on the subject

 

I'm well aware that the Bears haven't had a real, breathing QB in decades. That doesn't make Cutler or Trubisky better than they actually are.

[minnesotacubsfan]

it makes Cutler at least better the all the others

 

 

I love the Trubisky pick

[Guest]

I love Jay Cutler.

 

It's your unwavering adoration of the deeply flawed Cutler that makes me second guess your opinions on Trubisky, BTW

 

I don't necessarily love the way he plays, but I love him, nonetheless.

 

Trubisky is the anti-Cutler, actually.

 

I love Trubisky for all of the ways that he isn't Cutler. Trubisky is more like Rodgers in the fact that he's really elusive in the pocket, can run when needed, is accurate, and when he takes chances, he always errs to the sideline and not the middle of the field.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Stannis

[Sammy Sofa]

I love Jay Cutler.

 

It's your unwavering adoration of the deeply flawed Cutler that makes me second guess your opinions on Trubisky, BTW

 

I don't necessarily love the way he plays, but I love him, nonetheless.

 

Ahhh, he was griping about this with Castro yesterday, too.

[Derwood]

 

It's your unwavering adoration of the deeply flawed Cutler that makes me second guess your opinions on Trubisky, BTW

 

I don't necessarily love the way he plays, but I love him, nonetheless.

 

Ahhh, he was griping about this with Castro yesterday, too.

 

lol, "griping"