12/4 - Bears vs. Packers

[YearofDaCubs]

I guarantee Rex is #2 next week.

I wasn't paying attention. Was he not #2 today? Lovie said last Sunday that Grossman would almost definitely be #2 against the Packers.

He was #3. They thought he would be #2 but they decided to leave him at #3.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

Vasher better make the Pro Bowl.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Fred's Fearless Forecast.....

 

Green Bay     10
BEARS         13

Minnesota     21
Detroit       20

Dallas        17
NY Giants     23      (Sorry, Vance)

Atlanta       20
Carolina      24

 

 

Hey.... I'm starting to get good at this !!

[Brian]

Brett's reign of terror in Chicago is OVER :D

 

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/NY17412011521.jpg

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Bears have allowed 127 points this season, they need to allow 37 or fewer in the final 4 games for the record for least points allowed in a season. :)

[YearofDaCubs]

Bears have allowed 127 points this season, they need to allow 37 or fewer in the final 4 games for the record for least points allowed in a season. :)

That's going to be tough.

[Careless]

Bears have allowed 127 points this season, they need to allow 37 or fewer in the final 4 games for the record for least points allowed in a season. :)

16 game season?

[erik316wttn]

Congrats, guys. You beat us fair and square.

 

You capitalized on the opportunities you had.

 

Although I'll still be rooting for the Bears to be gutless, choking dogs in the playoffs.

[Mark Priors Calves]

nice win, but Orton is become a very horrible QB.

[bc2k]

Wow, GBis the least sacked team in the NFC. Least sacked and most intercepted, I'd bet that's somewhat unusual

Edit: teams 2-6 in ints are also 1-5 in sacks, so I'd say I'm probably right

 

Favre has been hurried a lot this year. I'm amazed Favre hasn't been sacked that much this year. The hurries though have caused Favre to make some pretty stupid throws and that's where the INT's come.

 

Bubba Franks is also starting today.

Just looking at the numbers, the psychology of favre does seem like a reasonable explaination for that situation (he prefers to make stupid passes than get taken down with the ball)

 

Right, which is why his games started streak is not as impressive as touted by the media. Favre is of the mindset to bail out with a bad pass instead of staying in the pocket an extra second and risk getting hit to deliver a better pass.

 

Take today's game for example. There were a handful of plays where he felt the pressure and just got rid of the ball.

 

Favre's manhood aside, he threw away another game this week. His teammates kept the game close, yet in the end it was another Favre failure that put the game in the loss column for the GB Packers.

 

Yet the biased media kept fellating him on his incomplete passes, saying "great job by [bears defender's name] to break up that play" when it was an easy play to break up because Favre underthrew his receiver. Also no mention of Favre's poor throwing accuracy today either.

 

I'm not upset that the Packers are making a bad decision by starting Favre over Rogers because with the way Brad Johnson is leading Minnesota to victories, the Bears can take all the easy Brett Favre-started wins they'll give us. It's like taking candy from a geriatric, should-be retiree.

[bc2k]

Brett's reign of terror in Chicago is OVER :D

 

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/NY17412011521.jpg

 

I keep replaying the Mike Brown hit on Favre over and over. :D

 

And the Peanut Tillman one too.

Edited December 9, 2005 by bc2k

[Careless]

I keep replaying the Mike Brown hit on Favre over and over. :D

Not tillman?

[Jon]

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806769.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806771.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806245.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806766.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806776.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806774.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806781.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806785.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806354.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806334.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806335.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806344.jpg

 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2005-12/20806349.jpg

 

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/CXB11112042301.jpg

 

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/CXB10912042222.jpg

 

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/CXB10812042220.jpg

 

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/CXB10612042200.jpg

 

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/CXB10512042151.jpg

 

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/apphoto/CXB10412042145.jpg

[bc2k]

I keep replaying the Mike Brown hit on Favre over and over. :D

Not tillman?

 

Fixed. :wink:

[Jon]

If anyone wants video highlights, PM me. The file is 18+ mb, but you'll need the xvid codec to view it.

[YearofDaCubs]

Man, what a defense. IMO Orton has regressed which isn't a very good sign. I know it will be difficult for the coaching staff to pull Orton right now but really do youhave any confidence in the playoffs having Orton in there? It's not just Orton though. Our WR corps is weak. Our TEs are a non-factor. I would like for us to draft a TE in the first round next year.

[Chocolate Milk]

Orton has to be pulled. Passing for 3 yards in the first half is unacceptable. We can't expect our defense to outscore the offense every single game. We have been unable to sustain drives, we cannot get the ball in the endzone, and we are getting killed in TOP.

 

We didn't even convert a third down the entire game. THE ENTIRE GAME

 

We should have won that game 35-7. We had short fields routinely, and got nothing out of it. It was an embarrassing performance by our offense. Hopefully Lovie can see what everyone else sees, with the QB position playing like it is right now, we can't hope to have much success in the playoffs. Will Rex be better? I'm not sure. He can't be much worse and at this point, you have to try something.

 

The defense was spectacular once again. I'd also like to point out that the much maligned Peanut had a spectacular game.

[goonys evil twin]

At this point, the only reason you keep playing Orton is because you think you can't change a good thing, assuming there is some sort of cause/effect with Orton starting and the Bears winning. If that's the case, then you probably want to wait until you lose again before making a change.

 

On the other hand, you could make the aggressive, "we're going for the gold, not just a medal" decision, and make the change before you lose, in an effort to win every game. At this point, the only thing holding back the Bears from greatness is the QB position. The defense is awesome. The kicking situation as settled. The running game is pretty good. The receivers are making some nice catches when the ball is somewhere near them. But the freaking QB play has been awful for several weeks in a row.

 

I never thought this team was a potential NFC champ, which is why I was more than happy to see Orton get playing time, to develop for a possible run in 2006. But it's pretty clear this team can beat anybody in the NFC. They are in prime position to steal home field advantage, at least in the first game, and possibly throughout. We know what Orton brings, and it's not enough. This team is on the verge of greatness, and NFL history has shown you must grab the bull by the horns when your time comes. This defense might have only 1-2 years of greatness left in it's current form, injuries can happen at any time, and football players can decline awfully quick.

 

If Rex is healthy, he has to start in Pittsburgh. Orton can take a break, review film and see if he can learn anything from his first exposure to the NFL.

[Chocolate Milk]

At this point, the only reason you keep playing Orton is because you think you can't change a good thing, assuming there is some sort of cause/effect with Orton starting and the Bears winning. If that's the case, then you probably want to wait until you lose again before making a change.

 

On the other hand, you could make the aggressive, "we're going for the gold, not just a medal" decision, and make the change before you lose, in an effort to win every game. At this point, the only thing holding back the Bears from greatness is the QB position. The defense is awesome. The kicking situation as settled. The running game is pretty good. The receivers are making some nice catches when the ball is somewhere near them. But the freaking QB play has been awful for several weeks in a row.

 

I never thought this team was a potential NFC champ, which is why I was more than happy to see Orton get playing time, to develop for a possible run in 2006. But it's pretty clear this team can beat anybody in the NFC. They are in prime position to steal home field advantage, at least in the first game, and possibly throughout. We know what Orton brings, and it's not enough. This team is on the verge of greatness, and NFL history has shown you must grab the bull by the horns when your time comes. This defense might have only 1-2 years of greatness left in it's current form, injuries can happen at any time, and football players can decline awfully quick.

 

If Rex is healthy, he has to start in Pittsburgh. Orton can take a break, review film and see if he can learn anything from his first exposure to the NFL.

 

I agree 100%. However, it seems like Lovie is going to go with Orton against the Steelers. I have a BAD feeling about that. If we lose that game, and the Vikings win theirs, I think we'll see Rex against the Falcons (Assuming Orton continues to play as he has). I'm worried with the Vikings breathing down our necks.

 

Interesting and terrifing fact: Our longest touchdown drive since the 49ers game is 8 yards.

[YearofDaCubs]

I totally agree with you guys. When we lose our first game which might be next week we need to make the change to Grossman. Orton has regressed. Bollinger, Fitzpatrick, Simms all have played less games than Orton has and they have been doing better. I also think it will be interesting to see what San Diego does during the Off-season. They have a talented QB in Philip Rivers who got a huge contract from San Diego. Of course Brees stepped up and is one of the top QBs in the game but River's contract makes him untradeable. More than likely they can keep both but if a time comes where they might be in cap trouble they look to trade Brees we should jump on it.

[XZero771679666304]

I love these doofuses on the SCORE saying that offense is superflous as long as the Bears are winning. I think it was Murph who insinuated that the alternative to having no offense is having offense but no defense. "How mant points did Pittsburgh score and still lose? 31? Is that what people want, to score points and lose?" IIRC, the Bengals handled the Bears as well. :roll:

 

I think having both would work just fine. The Bears would be a juggernaut with even an average offense.

[Chocolate Milk]

"How mant points did Pittsburgh score and still lose? 31? Is that what people want, to score points and lose?"

 

I hear this a lot and I can't make sense of it at all. Let's take for instance that game. The Steelers scored a lot and didn't win. Are they insinuating that scoring a lot means you will lose? The Bengals scored more and won! Weird how that works.

 

Why are good offenses and good defense considered by many as mutually exclusive? Hell, we're not even talking about a "good" offense for the Bears, we are talking about a slightly competent one. If the Bears endeavor to improve their offense they will automatically have a bad defense?

[goonys evil twin]

"How mant points did Pittsburgh score and still lose? 31? Is that what people want, to score points and lose?"

 

I hear this a lot and I can't make sense of it at all. Let's take for instance that game. The Steelers scored a lot and didn't win. Are they insinuating that scoring a lot means you will lose? The Bengals scored more and won! Weird how that works.

 

To me it's the same as the argument, or insinuation, that big time hitters aren't necessary in baseball because the Rockies, Rangers and others score a lot but don't win, and all that matters is pitching and defense. There is a sort of macho man love for defense, while high scoring offenses are assumed to be more finesse. I think that is true across all sports, and drives a lot of the desire for defense over offense. Offenses have been prioritized across most leagues, knowing that scoring = ratings, and a lot of old schoolers resent that, so, like their reaction to Billy Beane & Co. they go overboard in their bashing.

[Chocolate Milk]

"How mant points did Pittsburgh score and still lose? 31? Is that what people want, to score points and lose?"

 

I hear this a lot and I can't make sense of it at all. Let's take for instance that game. The Steelers scored a lot and didn't win. Are they insinuating that scoring a lot means you will lose? The Bengals scored more and won! Weird how that works.

 

To me it's the same as the argument, or insinuation, that big time hitters aren't necessary in baseball because the Rockies, Rangers and others score a lot but don't win, and all that matters is pitching and defense. There is a sort of macho man love for defense, while high scoring offenses are assumed to be more finesse. I think that is true across all sports, and drives a lot of the desire for defense over offense. Offenses have been prioritized across most leagues, knowing that scoring = ratings, and a lot of old schoolers resent that, so, like their reaction to Billy Beane & Co. they go overboard in their bashing.

 

You are right. I do hear it a lot from old timers.

 

I am also getting frustrated at the "If it aint broke don't fix it." crowd. If having the lowest rated passer in the league, coverting 28% (31st in the NFL) of our third downs, converting no third downs in the last game, not having a TD scoring drive longer than EIGHT yards for 3 weeks, and ranking DEAD LAST in passing yardage, isn't broke, I'm not sure what is.

 

The baseball equivilent would be to have a pitcher who has an 8 ERA but is 15-0 because he gets 13 Runs a game in support.

 

It's becoming very frustrating to listen to such ridiculous tripe as these morons spew on the radio. It's obvious the offense is frusterated with Orton. Do they think it still not "broken?"

[Chocolate Milk]

If it ain't broke...

 

Orton's passer rating for the season is 60.2, which, according to research done by STATS LLC, would tie the Bears with the 1982-83 Miami Dolphins for the second-worst combined quarterback rating in Super Bowl history.

 

don't fix it.

 

 

 

 

 

:roll: