JonJayCutler

Magic have now lost four in a row. Not sure when I can stop blaming the ridiculous flu epidemic our team just went through, but either way there's no excuse for this team to ever lose four in a row. Looks like we're going to need to add a piece via trade if we want any chance of getting by Boston in the playoffs. Quentin Richardson should not be a starter on any team in the NBA, let alone on one of the best teams in the East.

Yeah he hasn't been good. However, his tipping of Vick's pass that led to an interception and a 14-point swing might have won us that Eagles game. So I'm willing to let him by for now. He's not a starter anymore anyway.

good. i don't feel comfortable going into a week expecting to win, it's never good. This. The three games I've felt the most anxiety going into were the Carolina game, Buffalo game, and the Detroit game last weekend. What do all those games have in common? They're all games against vastly inferior opponents in which losing could potentially derail the rest of the season. The Washington and Seattle games were like this to a lesser extent, but since those teams are more mediocre than they are bad, I guess it didn't have the same feeling of potential disaster. I won't have that hard of a time losing to the Pats on Sunday as long as we don't give the game away or anything.

Howard just had one of the best offensive quarters I've ever seen from him. 18 points, and two blocks as well. Currently on pace for 72 points and eight blocks. :hello:

Mortensen and Schefter, who both picked the Lions over the Bears last week, are both picking the Bears over the Pats this week. Funny how they think we can beat a 10-2 team with the best QB in the NFL, but not a 2-10 team with its 3rd-string QB. I know there's more to it than that, but still.

aka Philip Rivers Charger fans hate Cutler because of that stupid exchange between him and Rivers during a game. Rivers is worse then Cutler in terms of being a punk and he talks more trash then any other QB I can remember. Yeah I took Cutler's side in that ordeal and I wasn't even really a fan of him at the time. Rivers just has the Ryan Braun effect going for me. Everything about him screams douche.

Things look a bit more favorable the following week though. Giants and Eagles play each other, the Packers go to New England, and the Saints go to Baltimore. Of course the Bears have what is far from an easy game in the Metrodome. I would like our chances of winning a lot more if it wasn't MNF. See: 2009 Week 16.

I wouldn't give up that much. Actually throw in another mid-level prospect and I probably make the deal.

I wouldn't give up that much.

http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=7360 Bears sign guard Herman Johnson to the 53-man from the Arizona practice squad and waive DE Barry Turner. Johnson is 6'7" 360 lbs. :shock:

If we're doing this, then you have to take into consideration the Bears injury to Cutler. They trailed just 3-0 at the half in that game against the Giants. If Cutler starts the 2nd half instead of Todd freaking Collins, who knows how that game ends up? Same with the Seattle and Washington games where one can argue that the concussion had a lasting effect on his play. If the Bears are 12-0 or even 11-1, I'm pretty sure they're ranked #1 or 2. Of course this argument goes against my butterfly effect theory to some extent, but what the hell. Flap, Lovie, flap! :-)

Green Bay is not the best team in the NFL, or the 2nd best. I'd rank them around 5th. I prefer people overrating them though.

Considering the Pats destroyed the Titans 59-0 last year in the midst of a blizzard, I'm going to go with them. Oh and they also won the tuck rule game in heavy snow, but that was awhile ago. When's the last time the Bears played in a snowstorm? It was snowing toward the end of the NFCCG against New Orleans, but that was hardly a storm.

Odd timing for this statement. This game has done nothing but crush any hope I had for next week. We won't lose by 40, but it's hard imagining any scenario where we'd pull off a win. At this point I'm just hoping not to get embarrassed.

Well barring a miracle it looks like NE will take this game, so there is hope for a letdown next week. As far as the other stuff goes, as long as the Jets beat the Dolphins at home next week, New England won't be able to clinch before the Packers game, so they'll still have plenty to play for. Plus, it's a Sunday night game on national TV and there is a chance a win will clinch them the AFC East. They'll be plenty fired up. As far as our game against the Jets, I have much more confidence in beating them than I do NE. They're by all means capable of beating us, but that doesn't mean they aren't horribly overrated. Also, there is a chance they'll have the #5 seed locked up and still nothing to really play for.

And to answer your question, the more frequent rushing is evidence that points to a revamping of the offensive gameplan after the Washington game, even if it was minor. Could they have still made those changes if they hang onto win the Washington game? Sure, but we'll never know that for certain. I don't know why it's a big deal though, I'm not asking you to agree with me.

24 attempts in the game after Washington, not 20. They had 13 in the Washington game, so they almost doubled that. Still fewer than opening day. How is that evidence of a change that Lovie's wings created? They definitely came out in Week 1 running the ball. But there is no denying that they became very pass-heavy after that. Like I said, 5 of the first 7 games with 15 or less total rushing attempts. They're much more consistent now, with the last five games all seeing 20 or more rushes, like I said. I can't get the image of Lovie flapping butterfly wings out of my head now, lol.

24 attempts in the game after Washington, not 20. They had 13 in the Washington game, so they almost doubled that.

I don't think it is. Martz has been adjusting all season long. They didn't run before because they couldn't. They've gotten a little better, to the point where guys are actually breaking long ones on occasion. They ran a lot in Carolina because they had to, and because they could. It's not like they came out against Buffalo and ran all day long. Cutler had more passing attempts against the Bills and Vikings than he did against Dallas and the Packers. Forte ran just 13 and 14 times the last two games. Taylor is just 6 and 9. I just don't see any reason to point to a stupid loss against the Redskins as the reason for more success now. It just doesn't hold up at all. Again, agree to disagree. None of what we're arguing can be proven, thus it's merely a matter of opinion. You are the one attempting to prove the butterfly effect happened and that Lovie Smith screwing up the Redskins game was a godsend. It's on you to prove your myth, not me. I've already said previously (in the Bears-Lions thread I think) that I could not prove it, which is why I called it a theory. But you cannot disprove it either. For what it's worth, the Bears are indeed running more often after the bye. Total rushing attempts per game between Forte and Taylor before the bye: 26, 14, 14, 15, 40, 12, 13. After the bye: 24, 32, 36, 20, 22. So that's 5 of the 7 games before the bye where they ran 15 times or less, where they've ran at least 20 times for every game after the bye. And the running 40 times against Carolina was mostly due to Cutler being out and our backup QB throwing 4 picks in 16 passing attempts. I'm not sure how you can deny that they're trying to run more when Martz himself said they're going for a more balanced attack on offense.

I don't think it is. Martz has been adjusting all season long. They didn't run before because they couldn't. They've gotten a little better, to the point where guys are actually breaking long ones on occasion. They ran a lot in Carolina because they had to, and because they could. It's not like they came out against Buffalo and ran all day long. Cutler had more passing attempts against the Bills and Vikings than he did against Dallas and the Packers. Forte ran just 13 and 14 times the last two games. Taylor is just 6 and 9. I just don't see any reason to point to a stupid loss against the Redskins as the reason for more success now. It just doesn't hold up at all. Again, agree to disagree. None of what we're arguing can be proven, thus it's merely a matter of opinion.

Cutler moved around a fair amount before, so I'm not sure how. I think two things have happened, the line stabilized a little bit and Cutler regained his faculties. I think Martz has been a solid coordinator all year. They did some things yesterday that they did in the Dallas game. They've gotten better the longer in the system, as you would expect. The Washington game didn't change them. Lovie royally F'd up that game and Cutler was forced into trying to do too much late to make up for his head coach's incompetency. If any game had a lingering effect on the season it's the Giants game, since that may have cost them both Seattle and Washington as Cutler recovered from a hangover. Agree to disagree I guess.

I'm not acting like he never ran before. He's simply running more now. The stats don't lie. And I have a theory about the Washington game, as I think the butterfly effect applies in sports. You can't just go back and say we should have won that game and without considering the implications it may have had on the following games. Whether it would have been a different mindset or whatever, we'll never know. Thus we cannot assume the same outcomes. It is a ridiculous theory. We can assume they would have won if Lovie challenged the play. There is no reason not to. It's ridiculous to try and excuse a horrible coaching decision by pretending the butterfly excuse made it happen. Cutler ran 5 times twice in the three games before the Giants molested his skull. He's run 5 times three times in the seven games since the incident. He's always been a moderate scrambler. This year he's operating with probably the worst line he's ever had and if he has been running more, it is because of that, and not because of a butterfly in the Redskins game. You're missing my point entirely. It's obvious that changes were made offensively after the Washington game, and if we don't lose that game in such a ridiculous fashion, it's debatable whether or not those changes get made when they do. My argument is perfectly valid.

Will you at least concede that the offense in general has changed since the bye week? The fact that since then the offense has been more balanced is undeniable. Chances are Cutler moving around more is part of those changes or at least a result of those changes as opposed to a coincidence.

I'm not acting like he never ran before. He's simply running more now. The stats don't lie. And I have a theory about the Washington game, as I think the butterfly effect applies in sports. You can't just go back and say we should have won that game and without considering the implications it may have had on the following games. Whether it would have been a different mindset or whatever, we'll never know. Thus we cannot assume the same outcomes.

And that's with missing a game and a half as well.