CubColtPacer

All that proves is how many stupid people there are that follow football. Grossman did more good things this season than any of those QBs did throughout their careers. I would completely disagree with that. The best numbers of all of the QB's on the list so far: Eason: 61.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/8 INT, 3328 yards, 7.5 Y/A, 5 TD's rushing Ferragamo: 59.4% completion percentage, 30 TD/19 INT, 3199 yards, 7.9 Y/A, 1 TD rushing Woodley: I don't want to embarrass him by posting his numbers-let's just say he's the worst QB to ever make a Super Bowl Dilfer: 56.2% completion percentage, 21 TD/11 INT, 2555 yards, 6.6 Y/A, 1 TD rushing Grossman: 54.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/20 INT, 3193 yards, 6.7 Y/A, 0 TD rushing To predict that Grossman will have a better career? Fine. To say that Grossman has done more this season than those QB's did in their entire careers? With the exception of Woodley, absolutely not. Eason and Ferragamo's seasons blow Grossman's out of the water, and Dilfer's is a little better as well. Taking Grossman's season numbers as a whole is very convenient. It's also extremely misleading. I'm not sure there's many QB's where you could take out their 3 worst games, and their numbers would go from this: 262 of 480 (54.6%) 3193 Yards 23 TD 20 INT 73.9 Rating to this: 240 of 412 (58.3%) 2982 Yards 23 TD 10 INT 89.3 Rating And that's not to say you can just throw out those games. It's meant to illustrate that his overall numbers don't really tell you very much in terms of his game to game performance. A few (3) REALLY bad games turned his stats from very good to just below average. I would agree with that argument (I call that the Jason Marquis argument BTW, since the same thing was used in defense of him a month ago, and while most people didn't buy that argument then I will buy it now :D). On the flip side though would be strength of schedule. How many teams did Grossman play that were actually playing well on defense at the time? The Lions weren't-they gave up the exact same numbers they did to Grossman the two weeks after Grossman played them. The 49ers didn't get their act together till after Chicago had played them, in fact they gave up over 30 points to 5 of the first 7 teams that played them. Seattle gave up 28 or more points 5 games in a row, with the Bears game being in the middle of that stretch. The Giants lost 4 in a row starting with the Bears game, mostly because of their lack of defensive players. Grossman did hit several teams at the right part of the season, which helped him out. He also had 3 frightening bad games, which makes his season look worse than it actually was. His numbers and the situations have been so scattered that it's really hard to tell what's going to happen next.

I'm still scared of him. With all that has been said, Grossman still has the potential to step up and have a masterful game. He has proven that very much with his several great games this year. He has proven that he can almost singlehandedly win or lose a game for the Bears, which few QB's have ever been able to do. I really have no idea what to expect out of him because I don't know what the gameplan by the Bears will be. If they can keep the pressure off of him, he should have at least a decent day, if not a great one. If Freeney and Mathis get around, then Grossman is going to fumble a couple of times because he hasn't proven that he can evade the rush consistently like Brady did so well last week. I'm very interested if the Bears are going to try to A) rely on their running game, B) try trick plays for misdirection, C) go to 3 step drops, D) go max protect, or E) All of the above. Grossman just has to make a couple great drives, and then try to let the defense do their work. I'm hoping the Colts can rattle him early, and force the Bears to pass.

All that proves is how many stupid people there are that follow football. Grossman did more good things this season than any of those QBs did throughout their careers. I would completely disagree with that. The best numbers of all of the QB's on the list so far: Eason: 61.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/8 INT, 3328 yards, 7.5 Y/A, 5 TD's rushing Ferragamo: 59.4% completion percentage, 30 TD/19 INT, 3199 yards, 7.9 Y/A, 1 TD rushing Woodley: I don't want to embarrass him by posting his numbers-let's just say he's the worst QB to ever make a Super Bowl Dilfer: 56.2% completion percentage, 21 TD/11 INT, 2555 yards, 6.6 Y/A, 1 TD rushing Grossman: 54.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/20 INT, 3193 yards, 6.7 Y/A, 0 TD rushing To predict that Grossman will have a better career? Fine. To say that Grossman has done more this season than those QB's did in their entire careers? With the exception of Woodley, absolutely not. Eason and Ferragamo's seasons blow Grossman's out of the water, and Dilfer's is a little better as well.

For the record, I hardly think that a poll asking for the worst QB to ever make the Super Bowl proves a national media bias against the Bears. For the record, I do. It's a joke to even see Rex's name included with those players. Do you guys even realize how bad those other guys were? Do you? Grossman has more talent in his left foot than these bums. Talent, sure. Has Grossman played better than those QB's though? Here are the the season statistics of all 5 QB's you mentioned- QB A: 48% completion percentage, 5 TD/10 INT, 7.1 Y/A, 8 games played QB B: 59.1% completion percentage, 12 TD/11 INT, 6.7 Y/A, 9 games QB C: 54.7% completion percentage, 5 TD/8 INT, 6.0 Y/A, 9 games QB D: 54.6% completion percentage, 23 TD/20 INT, 6.7 Y/A, 16 games QB E: 56.2% completion percentage, 11 TD/17 INT, 7.2 Y/A, 16 games (came out in 7 games). Is there really that much difference between these QB's? There's a couple really bad ones in there, and a couple decent ones, but none of them are anywhere close to typical Super Bowl QB's. One more thing-QB E is getting a little too much blame for his Super Bowl year-the year before, he had 23 TD/8 INT's with 5 TD's running the ball along with 3200 yards passing. That's almost MVP numbers in some years. In addition, the year after the Super Bowl he went back to 19 TD and 10 INT-which makes me think that he was hurt most of his Super Bowl year, which caused the really bad numbers. Grossman may be the best or 2nd best on that particular list (I would say second best right now), but his numbers still put him as at least on the list.

It's unbelievable... Look at the names on that list. It's ridiculous. Yet, some people would still have you think that there is no national media bias against the Bears. Obviously the people in that poll disagree with you (considering Grossman is winning)-while I am not sure that Grossman is one of the worst QB's ever in a Super Bowl, he is definitely one of the 2 or 3 worst in the last 10 years- Look at this list 2005-Big Ben, Hasselbeck 2004-Brady, Mcnabb 2003-Brady, Delhomme 2002-Brad Johnson, Gannon 2001-Brady, Warner 2000-Dilfer, Collins 1999-Warner, McNair 1998-Elway, Chandler 1997-Elway, Favre 1996-Favre, Bledsoe 1995-Aikman, O'Donnell Before that we had QB's like Aikman and Kelly, and names like Montana and Elway that were in several of the SB's the years before that. The SB has always been populated by great QB's. The only QB's you could even put Grossman next to on that list are Big Ben, Brad Johnson, Dilfer, Collins, Chandler, and O'Donnell. I just looked up all their stats, and Grossman is worse than all of them in important stats like completion percentage and TD/INT ratio (I didn't look at rating, but if Grossman is behind in those, he likely isn't above any more than 1 person at most in rating also, since those stats are key in compiling the QB rating). This is no national media bias-Grossman is growing and will be a very good QB one day, and has had many very good days-but when one looks at his stats compared to other QB's, he deserves to be on the list of the worst QB's to ever play in a Super Bowl. Edit: If Bob already cleared up your question, I'm sorry. I didn't see his response till after I wrote this, but I did find the analysis interesting, so I'm going to leave it up as it is.

It's not like he was that far off. They got one game better between 03 and 04 but have declined since then. Having said that, as someone else stated, whether or not this is a good deal depends entirely on how Floyd is used which is of course yet to be determined. True, but they also got better between 02 and 03-so it was 2 years of ascending records, and then 2 years of descending records, and 07 promises to go back up. I agree there could be some cause for concern with Floyd in the way he's used, but right now, this is a very good deal to get another solid bat off the bench, something which the Cubs have not had for a long time now.

I can't decide if he wants to downplay the importance of it (Peyton has never wanted to talk about his injuries when he has had them, of course they've never been serious enough for him to miss a single game in his career) or just a little bit of gamesmanship. I think it's the former, but I can't be sure.

It will be at intervals we are used to during the game-the TV timeouts will probably be longer than usual, but that's the only difference. BTW, I expect CBS to announce-"We're going to try something different with the commercials tonight, as one sponser has bought every commercial slot! Here is the first comercial"....."This is my country" :D

How is Bob Sanders? Can we kill him somehow? No, you may not, and his knee appears to be just fine :D.

Nick Harper is going to be held out of practice this week and then re-evaluated. If he can't go, he'll be replaced in the lineup by Marlin Jackson, which will make Kelvin Hayden (the corner Brady sort of picked on) coming into the game as the nickel corner.

Here's ESPN's story-they're saying that Floyd will be a backup-no mention here of "sharing time", although I'm sure that's going to come up in a story or two today: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2738583

Please don't say broken down in a Floyd thread! I hope he doesn't think he's going to get 500 AB's at the expense of big red. I'm pretty sure you can't take your walker to LF, so I think Murton's ABs are relatively safe. Probably not but I really don't understand why he signed with the Cubs since they don't have a DH, there must have been very little interest or he just wanted to play in Chicago. Floyd has said that the Cubs are the team he wants to sign with since the beginning of the offseason-he probably had better offers elsewhere (since there was a report that several teams were after him a few days ago) but Floyd really, really wanted to come to Chicago.

Why does it mean that? That would run contrary to everything Piniella and Hendry have been saying-they want Floyd to be the 4th OF, not take away most of Murton's AB's.

The Colts defense is not a bad Cover 2 defense against the pass. They struggled against the run all season, but they did very well against the pass. Also, the teams that can beat the Colts cover 2 are the ones who can do 3 step drops effectively and dink and dunk around the defense. Can Grossman do that? I'm not sure-but if he tries to take 5 and 7 step drops all day, Chicago better go max protection or else Freeney and Mathis will be a force on the outsides. Also, a key for the Colts passing defense may be the health of Nick Harper. He is easily the Colts best corner, and it will just have to be seen if the Colts will have him for this game.

A large part of that is simply the variability of pro football. Look at the Bears/Seahawks games and Colts/Patriots games for example. Did the Bears and the Colts really prove they were the better team? They deserve to go and possibly be called champions, definitely. At the same time, both of those games were so close that 1 play changed the outcome of the game entirely-when that's the case with teams, it's hard to say that somebody was really off by picking the other side. Isn't it amazing to think that if just 1 or 2 very small things go differently, this could be say a Chargers-Saints SB? I can tell you one thing, I'm glad that for this year, those things did not go differently :D. I guess the point is, predictions and prognostications are for all intents and purposes completely useless. As for proving you are the better team-----that's not the object of any sport, really. The object is to win the games necessary to become champions, any way you possibly can. By hook or crook, as they say. 8-) I personally feel the Colts and the Bears are both very deserving of being in the Super Bowl. Oh, I definitely agree that they are deserving-and you're correct, in a sport like football, predictions really mean nothing. There's too many variables during the game that can twist it around, and in a 1 game situation those variables become crucial to deciding the winner.

A large part of that is simply the variability of pro football. Look at the Bears/Seahawks games and Colts/Patriots games for example. Did the Bears and the Colts really prove they were the better team? They deserve to go and possibly be called champions, definitely. At the same time, both of those games were so close that 1 play changed the outcome of the game entirely-when that's the case with teams, it's hard to say that somebody was really off by picking the other side. Isn't it amazing to think that if just 1 or 2 very small things go differently, this could be say a Chargers-Saints SB? I can tell you one thing, I'm glad that for this year, those things did not go differently :D. What "very small thing" makes up a 25 point difference in the Saints game? The Seahawks have much more of a case for what you're talking about than New Orleans. I'm saying that the Seahwaks beat the Bears, and then I believe the Saints beat the Seahawks due to the matchups. That's why I didn't put the Seahawks in my Super Bowl matchup.

Probably not a first rounder, but he might get you a 2nd rounder. I wonder if any team would be interested in Jones and Wale together. How old is Jones? I wouldn't trade much for a backup RB as they are probably the easiest thing to find. Jones came into the league the same year as Urlacher, so he has been around a little while. I think he is definitly worth a #2 though. He is not a back-up running back. He would start for a lot of teams. 1300-1400 yard running backs are not that common. He did it last year, and he would have done it this year, but the Bears gave Benson a lot of carries towards the end of the season. Also if he can play well next Sunday and the Bears win the Super Bowl, his value goes up. The demand always seems to be higher for guys coming off a Super Bowl win. I think Wale can get us a 2nd round pick as well. I doubt Jones draws a second round pick. He compares very favorably to Travis Henry, who is the same age and came into the league a year after Jones. Jones' career numbers are 5,384 yards and 34 TDs and his best three seasons were (all w/Bears) 948, 1335 and 1210 yards. Henry's career numbers are 5,395 yards and 34 TDs and his best three seasons (2 w/Bills and this year w/Titans) were 1438, 1356 and 1211 yards. The Titans gave a third round pick and we paid much more than anybody was offering because we didn't want the Jags to acquire him. I think I recall the Jags being the top bidder before us, offering a fourth (I think). The only reason Jones might draw more is that the Bills had Willis McGahee and Henry was clearly the backup, Jones, while not clearly the backup, is being forced out by Benson. Both are starter material without much question, though I view Henry as slightly better. Agreed-especially since there were rumors that the Colts couldn't even get a second round pick for Edgerrin when he was trying to work out his own trade a little while ago-I doubt it's changed that much then to let Thomas Jones a 2nd rounder. The highest pick I think in a long while for a RB was a late 2nd for Dillon while in his late prime.

Pretty much every team goes through that funky 7 to 10 day stretch when they struggle. The key of course is to take advantage of that timeframe! Not when they are way better than the rest of the league. We didn't two years ago and I doubt Wiscy does this year. They've already squeaked by a couple of their conference opponents. If they keep letting their conference opponents get them down to the last 5 minutes with a tie game, eventually they are going to lose a couple of games.

A large part of that is simply the variability of pro football. Look at the Bears/Seahawks games and Colts/Patriots games for example. Did the Bears and the Colts really prove they were the better team? They deserve to go and possibly be called champions, definitely. At the same time, both of those games were so close that 1 play changed the outcome of the game entirely-when that's the case with teams, it's hard to say that somebody was really off by picking the other side. Isn't it amazing to think that if just 1 or 2 very small things go differently, this could be say a Chargers-Saints SB? I can tell you one thing, I'm glad that for this year, those things did not go differently :D.

He's the primary Bears beat writer at the Trib. I don't know the backstory, or his credibility. I would bet you a hundred dollars his primary motivation for such a story would be to create interest and get noticed in Indy (which would probably increase Trib sales in Indy). I do know his unibrow photo on the trib site freaks me out. Thanks for the info-most Colts fans I've talked to this morning don't think it's that bad, but it certainly has gotten a few mentions.

BTW, who's David Haugh, and how much credibility does he have? He has an article that appeared in our paper this morning about how the Bears are jumping for joy because they likely couldn't beat the Chargers or Patriots, but can beat the Colts. I just wondered what his backstory was.

But when players haven't produced in the past instead of getting rid of them, he's signed them to more than they are worth. I'm looking at you Glendon and Neifi. Neifi yes-I would argue with you about Glendon. Do you know how much money Glendon would have signed for if he had his 04 and 05 seasons before this offseason? It's almost scary to think about what 1 good year, and 1 league average year can make for you in the majors now. Of course, right after Hendry signed him Rusch finished falling apart entirely, but that's a different story for a different day.

He said (not that I necessarily agree with him) that Peyton got his demons out of the way in Belichek and Brady and should now be pretty loose in the Super Bowl. Grossman he still believes may have pressure over his job if he plays terribly, and plus Grossman doesn't have the experience that Peyton has to deal with the pressure. I think they each have different pressures-I'm not sure Reggie is correct, although his opinion is at least reasonable. Eh. I still don't know why theyre asking Reggie Miller. He of course said the Colts would destroy the Bears, which I think is false. I still always thought Peyton's pressure came from winning the Super Bowl, not just beating the Patriots. Last year they wouldn't have faced the Patriots at all but they still lost. I think there's more pressure on Manning now that he's finally gotten there and they're facing a team that everyone thinks they should roll over (which Im still failing to understand why). Anyways, I dont need to listen to some jagbag like jim rome or woody paige or jay mariotti. This season has been sweet so far, Im not gonna let those retards bring me down. Well, of course he is going to say the Colts are going to beat the Bears. He wasn't brought on for analysis or anything, Dan Patrick has him on every Monday at that same time, and of course this week he's going to ask him about the Colts game, and of course Reggie is going to say that the Colts are gong to win. It shouldn't really be given any weight as serious analysis or anything, just a fan's opinion really.

He said (not that I necessarily agree with him) that Peyton got his demons out of the way in Belichek and Brady and should now be pretty loose in the Super Bowl. Grossman he still believes may have pressure over his job if he plays terribly, and plus Grossman doesn't have the experience that Peyton has to deal with the pressure. I think they each have different pressures-I'm not sure Reggie is correct, although his opinion is at least reasonable.

Congrats Illinois. You played very good defense, and kept IU off balance the entire night, which exacerbated the poor shooting night by IU. Your crowd was hostile, but I was glad to see that they stayed clean with everything-just a good, hard Big 10 arena-thanks to your fanbase for that. Good luck in the rest of your season (except for when we meet you again of course :D).