bukie

It is.

Negative. The last two are extra difficult. One played for Detroit his rookie year and is currently on a roster with 2 other guys on this list. The other played for the Saints and is currently a US Congressman.

I'm not saying Simmons makes great picks, but had Dallas pulled off the upset, would you give him grief over the Jets as a playoff team in the AFC losing to Dallas? Probably, since he gave him grief for St. Louis losing to Philly (another playoff predicted team with a better record).

Ryan Leaf is 3rd, yes.

And no on Bledsoe.

To recap: 1. Cade McNown 197 (1999) 2. Ryan 191 3. ? 178 (1998) 4. Byron Leftwich 174 (2003) 5. Ryan 170 6. Peyton 169 7. ? 165 (1994) 8. ? 162 (1998) 9. Eli 161 10. Big Ben 156 11. Newton 150

No on Culpepper, Peyton is only 6th, two other QBs drafted in 1998 are the other 1998 spots.

Leftwich is 4th, McNown is 1st.

No.

Yes.

Nope on both.

Bulger was drafted in 2000, and didn't play until 2002, which is why his isn't on the list.

No on Bulger, Schaub and Leinart. Here are the years as more hints: 1. ? 197 (1999) 2. Ryan 191 3. ? 178 (1998) 4. ? 174 (2003) 5. Ryan 170 6. Peyton 169 7. ? 165 (1994) 8. ? 162 (1998) 9. Eli 161 10. Big Ben 156 11. Newton 150

Negative on Grossman and Romo.

Peyton 6th, Eli 9th, Ryan 2nd and 5th, Roethlisberger 10th. So here's the list so far: 1. ? 2. Ryan 191 3. ? 4. ? 5. Ryan 170 6. Peyton 169 7. ? 8. ? 9. Eli 161 10. Big Ben 156 11. Newton 150 The rest of the names are the hard ones. Only two are on a 2011 roster (and both on the same roster, oddly enough).

Since I like trivia... In today's FO Quick Reads column, they mentioned that Cam Newton's performance was the 11th best performance by DYAR of any rookie QB (not alll in their first game). They list the top 10 performances by DYAR for rookie QBs. Anyone care to guess who was responsible for them? Hints: All of them have happened since 1994, and one person was responsible for two of them.

Barnwell's column was basically Detroit was better than the score looked due to garbage time points, and the Bears weren't quite as good as the score looked due to fortunate fumble recoveries at opportune times. His argument was basically that all the fumbles occurred at pivotal times, and any of them could've changed the complexion of the game had Atlanta recovered even one.

Detroit? Where did you get that from? They played in Baton Rouge. I saw "Tiger Stadium" and instinctively thought Detroit. Baton Rouge makes a ton more sense.

Have the Bears seriously not won in the Superdome since Super Bowl XX? That seems wrong, but they mentioned it on sports radio this morning. EDIT: This is apparently true. They won "at" New Orleans in 2005, but they actually played them in Detroit because of Hurricane Katrina. Through other odd schedule quirks (a ton of the games against NO were at home) and the Bears being just plain bad, they haven't won at the Superdome since January of 1986 in Super Bowl XX. They haven't beaten the Saints at the Superdome since 1975.

Uh, no. I understand what he's spazzing about, and he's still being ridiculous.

Those were both the second-half sacks. Overall, the line played better in the second half (Webb penalties notwithstanding). The sack-fumble was caused at least partially by pressure, though, too.

Ryan lost the one for a TD. Turner lost the one that Tillman punched out. Hester dropped a punt that he promptly picked up and advanced. Cutler dropped one as he rolled out and he fell on it. Hester dropped one that he fell on near the 25. There was no Falcons nearby for any of the last 3 I mentioned. The Falcon that caused Cutler's fumble was pretty near that one, but on the ground and not really in position to recover it. The Hester reception drop (where he bumped his own lineman) was just stupid, and if anything hurt the Bears on that play because it would've gone for more.

THE BREAKS JUST KEEP COMING! Teams just randomly start dropping the football when they play the Bears. How can one team get so damn lucky? Are you purposely being obtuse here, or do you really not understand the difference between causing fumbles and recovering fumbles? Fumble recovery percentage last year: http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fumble-recovery-pct

There's a difference between forcing fumbles and recovering fumbles. One is predictable, the other is not (on a grand scale). The difference in recovery % between a forced fumble and a muff/drop is lower than the statistical noise associated with fumble recovery. Nobody is saying the Bears got lucky to win, just that the fumbles worked out fortunately for them yesterday. Here were the 5 fumbles: - Hester fumbled after his first completion on the second play of the game (ran into his own lineman), but it came right back to him. Score was 0-0 at the time. - Turner fumble at the end of the first quarter. Good strip by Tillman, Bears ended up with it at the bottom of the pile. Score was 10-3 at the time. - Hester's muffed punt return where fortunately nobody was around. Bad muff in a fortunate situation. Score was 10-3 at the time. - Ryan's "set the ball on the ground" fumble early in the third returned for the TD. Score was 23-6 (and then 30-6) at the time. - Cutler's sack-fumble in the fourth that bounced right back to him. Score was 30-12 at the time. In each situation, it's not necessarily that the fumble's weren't forced by the D, it's just that actually recovering the fumbles took some fortune, whether it was the situation or the bounce. The Bears are regularly quite effective at causing fumbles, but their recovery rate is right in line with the rest of the league. That often means they recover more fumbles than their opponents as a result of the high volume of fumbles caused. However, their rate isn't any better than anyone else's, and a 100% recovery rate was a bit fortunate, considering the circumstances for each fumble. By the Hester muff, the Bears had basically seized control of the game and forced the Falcons to be one-dimensional, and the D shut down Atlanta's passing game completely after that point.

The only real advantage Kruetz gives the Saints this week is similar to how helpful it is to know exactly where a dam will be leaking.