Sammy Sofa

That'd give us 2400 yards, 15 touchdowns, 10 picks? It'd be close, but yeah, I'd probably take that season over 3600, 27,26 A dozen = 12, but close enough, I guess. 2400 yards, 17 touchdowns, 12 picks. Either way, congratulations, the Bears probably just went something like 4-12 or 3-13.

actually, no he didn't. but favre is the single seasons packers' leader, peyton with the colts (unitas is second and third), tarkenton with the vikings, sonny jurgensen with the eagles, stabler with oakland. do want a list of great quarterbacks who have thrown 26 ints or more in a single season? In the modern era, in their age 26 season? Sure. Peyton and Favre don't play in the "modern era?" And why is age 26 so ciritcla to the equation?

Your points are right there in black and white. You're the one going out of your way to specifically mentioning Hendry as someone who must have valuable insight into the situation and that nobody else here can possible have a valid opinion on it that doesn't paint Bradley as the obvious villain since they weren't as close as Hendry or others.

So your expectations for "better" really would just be less picks? This person would be a better quarterback if he threw only a dozen picks, but also threw ten less touchdowns and 1200 less yards?

This discussion really has very little to do with Hendry. And yet you keep going to the Hendry well to make your point.

Not many. I'd say maybe 4-5. Maybe. And I'm assuming by "better" you're not only meaning "less picks," right?

This guy is the ultimate Hendry-defender.

No, I'm saying the 2008 and 2009 Bears had pretty much the same offensive personnel. And the combo of Orton/Grossman vs. Cutler came out to the difference I stated: 600 yards, 7 touchdowns, 14 interceptions. I'd rather have the performance we got out of Orton/Grossman in 2008 than the one we got out of Cutler in 2009, and "Orton was better under similar circumstances" is about the worst thing I can think of to say about a quarterback. Orton was behind an offensive line that performed better and a running game that performed much better. Simply saying that they had the same personel like the results were the same is not realistic.

I think your expectations of a franchise QB are simply way too high. A franchise QB is not necessarily an elite QB. And saying that Denver and Chicago have "pretty much the same offensive personel" is vastly overstating that comparison.

Of course he can turn it around. And I'm saying when you give up two first-round picks and a large contract, it's reasonable to expect more than "can turn it around." Why? The team around him was horrible. It's rare to have a QB who can basically carry the entire team by himself, and the offense was horrendous on every possible level, yet despite that he still threw more TD's than he ever has and racked up 3600+ yards. That doesn't negate the picks, but surely you can see how the entire situation needs to be evaluated as opposed to focusing on on the interceptions uber alles. The year shows that this is a QB that you need to actually somewhat tailor the team to him as opposed to just throwing him in an offense acting like it's still 1952 and expecting miracles.

Yes. People who dislike quarterbacks who lead the league in interceptions are just having agendas, whereas fans of a team who insist that everything is okay are the objective ones. You really can see nothing except the picks? Or even the larger context of those picks? Nobody is saying Cutler doesn't have his obvious flaws, but Jesus Christ, you're trying to narrow your argument to a single, blinders-on point as hard as possible.

Step aside, folks: there's a new footballknowitall.com a-brewin'! When one bizarrely-coiffed manimal goes down another is there to valiantly take his place!

There's too many idiots amongst the fans and the sports media that think Hendry made the right move in trading him and don't care what Silva does. Anything stupid thing Bradley says just reinforces that in their minds.

I guess I'm not flipping out over it because I figure (and have always hoped) they end up with Bosh anyways. At least your last post made a bunch of much more reasonable arguments beyond "FA's won't want to play with the Bulls if they stink the rest of the year." While some markets have different tax issues I think the plus of playing in Chicago and with a player like Rose will also make more avenues to merchandising deals open up. For a guy like LeBron or Wade that's pretty redundant, but for a guy like Bosh that can be a big deal. And yeah, the Knicks can sing two max FA's, but the Bulls arguably don't have to since they basically already have one in Rose. They can sign a max FA and then still have a decent chunk of change to sign themselves a solid role player. That's a hell of an improvement to a major market team that already has a core of good young players plus one superstar. Those are the factors that will matter most as to whether they they sign a max FA or not.

I'm not talking just about Noah. If they collapse it's likely because injuries continued to sideline or hinder Deng and/or Rose and, to a lesser extent, Kirk and Miller. Gibsons's own PF issues might crop up as well. Noah alone is unlikely to sink this team as they have shown. And let's stop talking about the one missing piece just being anybody. If the Bulls get one of the big 3 FA's then we're talking a HUGE piece that drastically improves this team. I wish they had dealt both. It certainly doesn't sound as if there wasn't demand for Hinirch. I have to wonder how much Rose's repeated statements in favor of Kirk played out behind the scenes. How are they at a disadvantage? They have more than enough to shell out a max contract to a top shelf FA. They have a big market city. They have a young superstar player plus several other decent young players. You're vastly overstating the impact that the end result of this season on signing someone. It'll come down to money and whether or not they want to play with Rose with everything else a very distant second. The Celtics series was a complete and total aberration. It's ridiculous to act like the Bulls, or really any other team, has a chance to replicate what many are calling one of the best playoff series of all time. Most playoff series are ultimately rather unremarkable in the grand scheme of things. You're seemingly basing your argument around an obvious exception to the rule. You're letting a very unusual end to the season last year cloud your judgement. The Bulls' sales pitch is already set: max salary plus Rose in a market like Chicago. Anything else, barring a bizarre repeat of last year or better, is just superfluous. Still having Salmons wouldn't make a repeat of last year or better any more likely.

Sponge, do you seriously think that any FA evaluating this team from here on out would focus on what could have been with two humps like Tyrus and Salmons as opposed to realizing that any collapse that occurs between now and the end of the season will be due to GLARINGLY OBVIOUS INJURIES TO KEY PLAYERS?

Yeah, Bosh, stay in Toronto. It's exactly the same as playing in a market like Chicago and with a player like Rose for the same money. Man, the Bulls are in such a shitty position, what with them having all that money in a podunk town without any players anyone would want to play with.

It's an uncapped year. The money has always been there.

Yes, there's been somewhat of a downgrade, but who gives a [expletive]? Salmons had to go and the best way to do that was to get expirings in return. Salmons is a slightly above average player at best...what the hell did you think they would get in return if they're looking to free up cash? It's not like they went from being a good team to being a bad one. Salmons and Tyrus were not the differences in this team looking good or looking bad.

Please stop with this ridiculous theory. The FA's can dry their tears over playing for such a bad team with the massive amounts of money the Bulls push their way...oh wait, those are tears of joy over the massive amounts of money.

Kudos to you for recognizing that, just maybe, the depth and breadth of this dude's delusions made trading him at any cost the smart move -- and that only someone up close and personal to the situation (like, say, Jim Hendry) would know for sure. The armchair QBs around here were having none of that hypothesis a few months ago, when this story was still on the front burner. Because they're smart.

I they both feed into the mix. Part of it is injuries, part of it is the trades (which is really killing us in the post defensively and rebounding wise) and part of it is not having the depth to withstand everything that happened. True in regards to depth, though I don't think the trades are nearly as damaging as you're presenting. Salmons was generally better on defense (though hardly anything to really talk about) but Thomas was touch and go as to what you'd get at best. Overall they're pretty much a wash. If they were actually fully healthy there'd be little difference in the team pre and post-trades, as we've already seen.

Why should they? They shouldn't. My post was saying don't get mad at this season, the Bulls brass doesn't care so why should we. This season isn't important. Well, yeah. Some of us have been saying that the entire time.

Wait, wait, wait...you think they're significantly worse because of the trades? And not because of the injuries to key players? Guh? How does that work? How do you know the former is true with the latter occuring?

Why should they?