UMFan83

This would be like calling the Cy Young award the R.A. Dickey Award just because he won it the previous season. I don't know how far back you should go, but let's at least call it the Aaron Miles Award. It's the Neifi! Award. Strangely enough (largely because of mediocre, not bad defense), Neifi was never even close to the worst WAR on the team during his 3 season tenure with the Cubs. In fact, he had positive WAR in all 3 seasons.

Just for fun: Kyle Korver - 7 games, 9.3 PPG, 12.89 PER, .431 FG%, .391 3PT % Ronnie Brewer - 5 games, 9.0 PPG, 17.00 PER, .459 FG%, .500 3PT% (14 3PTA) CJ Watson - 6 games, 8.3 PPG, 12.91 PER, .442 FG%, .333 3PT% Omer Asik - 8 games, 10.5 PPG, 12.9 RPG, 14.11 PER, .727 FT% (33 FTA) John Lucas III - 8 games, 2.1 PPG, 1.07 PER, .176 FG% (34 FGA)

This would be like calling the Cy Young award the R.A. Dickey Award just because he won it the previous season. I don't know how far back you should go, but let's at least call it the Aaron Miles Award.

Had a solid year in 2008 and actually made the All Star team, then was terrible for most of 3 seasons before 74 solid PA with the Reds last year. He's had a cumulative -0.6 WAR since his 1.7 WAR season in 2008 according to BR... 0.2 last year, but positive defensive WAR in all 5 seasons. Slash line in 2008: .295/.349/.407/.757 (470 PA) Slash line from 2009-2011: .207/.267/.311/.578 (754 PA) Slash line in 2012: .290/.306/.449/.755 (74 PA) FO hoping that tiny sample size was some sort of adjustment or rebirth for him, or at least enough for him to be a passable defensive backup catcher?

You shoud probably edit your title to say that. Oh and thanks for noting that it was the catcher Navarro....I was worried that they dug up Jamie Navarro from somewhere.

fwiw, all these guys have higher qb ratings than Cutler Its not a list of QB ability, it's a list of where teams stand on their QB situation. I thought I made that pretty clear. I'm almost positive the Bears have no reservations about Jay being their long term answer, righty or wrongly, while the 49ers spent last offseason rolling out the red carpet for Peyton Manning.

You said its not a league wide problem, yet I pointed out 19 teams that are currently less than satisfied with their starting QBs as a long term answer. lol Tampa "oh god it's terrible having the NFL leader in YPA as our QB" Good thing teams don't decide on long term answers based on the last 9 games. If they did, they'd be ignoring last year's poor performance following a really good 2010. I'm sure the Bucs are thrilled with Freeman's performance this year, and think he might be the long term answer, but I can't yet put him in the completely satisfied as long term answer camp of the list I spent 2 minutes putting together.

You said its not a league wide problem, yet I pointed out 19 teams that are currently less than satisfied with their starting QBs as a long term answer.

How could you possibly say this seriously. Because of the Packers, and the 49ers of old, the Colts. Broncos had Cutler, did better with him than we have, then managed to get Manning. Falcons go from Vick to Ryan. Teams do much better than we do, even if it is difficult. Mostly, the overall point is that the strong likelihood is we will go back to poor QB play after Cutler leaves, barring some kind of organizational overhaul. It's just not a strength of the team. Drafting and developing defense is. Other teams can't do that very well. Out of the 32 NFL teams in the NFL, here are a list of teams that are currently likely satisfied with their starting QB as a long term answer: Patriots, Ravens, Steelers, Colts, Broncos, Texans, Giants, Redskins, Bears, Lions, Packers, Falcons, Saints. That's 13 teams. You can argue the inclusion of the Cowboys, Panthers and Chargers, but you could also argue the exclusion of the Colts and Redskins since their QBs are rookies (good ones though). Here is how the other 19 teams feel about their QB situation: 1. Young QB that hasn't proven he's the long term answer but could be: Dolphins, Bengals, Browns, Titans, Vikings, Pathers, Buccaneers, Seahawks, Rams 2. QB that's in no major danger of being benched but will definitely consider upgrade opportunities that come up: 49ers, Cowboys, Chargers, maybe Raiders 3. Starter is inconsistently mediocre at best, but can't do much because we stupidly signed them to a huge extension: Bills, Eagles 4. Our starter is pure garbage and could be replaced any week: Jets, Jaguars, Chiefs, Cardinals Even if you take out the first category, you are still looking at 10 teams who have no particular long term solution at QB that they are currently satisfied with. And I guaranetee you based on past history that roughly half the QBs in that first category will not succeed and will be benched, cut or signed to a massive extension by the Bills at some point in the future. So after all of that, tell me again why it's only the Bears that have trouble getting a quality QB (pre-Cutler)? PS, and just for fun, the Bears have had starting QBs in all 4 categories (number 1 (Grossman 2005-2006), number 2 (Orton 2008), number 3 (Grossman/Greise w/o the contact extension thing - 2007), and number 4 (Quinn/Krenzel/etc - 2004)) all in the last 8 years.

I'm definitely not disagreeing with you, but I am trying to think of examples of historicaly inept passing teams acquiring a pro bowl caliber QB and the results they got from it. The only thing I can think of is Kurt Warner going to the Giants and watching his career go down the tubes, only to be resurrected in Arizona. I can think of examples of QBs starting their careers at more offensively inept teams and getting traded/cut and then signing with the right team and blowing up. Steve Young and Brett Favre come to mind. There are also a few journeymen QBs that I can think of that get passed around the league and every few years have a revival with the right team. Vinny Testaverde and Kerry Collins are 2 that might fit that mold.

wtf is going on with Robbie? What the [expletive] does getting old have to do with anything as a kicker? Morten Anderson was out there kicking FGs in NY and KC in his mid-40's and he wasn't bitching. You are 30. STFU and make your kicks dude.

Come on now... If you're going to evaluate his 3.5 years in Chicago how would you summarize it using statistics? It's obvious he didn't have much to work with starting out. Follow the logic here. He wants a statistic to evaluate Cutler's performance as a Bear and admits that it's tough to use his individual stats to evaluate him because he didn't have much to work with the first couple of years. So he then proposes that team W-L is the best way to judge Cutler. What the hell?

I am counting a record of 10-16 against teams with a .500 record or better with the Bears. 2-8 in 2009, and 8-8 since then. The numbers could be slightly off.

Funny how Gould's compaints become public immediately after uncharacteristically missing 2 fairly easy (for him) FG attempts in his last 2 games on the field.

Robbie Gould vs. the Chicago Park District.....Fight!

:good: Thank God. Podlesh has been increasingly terrible this year. He's like Maynard without the directional kicking ability.

Even Luis Valbuena?

he just became the second-fastest quarterback in NFL history to throw for 10,000 yards, and is top-5 in expected points added this season, behind Ryan, Brady, Brees, Manning and ahead of Rodgers In an era where 10 players threw for 4,000+ yards last year. It's a heavy passing era. Doesn't mean what Stafford did wasn't impressive but its hard to be awed by all-time stats when passing has never been a bigger part of the game. Stafford is good and has the talent but I see him making bad decisions when he plays the Bears. He's still young though, considering his first what, 3 seasons were significantly lessened by injuries.

I agree, but I have a hard time seeing who should be ranked higher. I think maybe FSU and Clemson should, but cannot make any great argument why. They both will have a chance to beat a Top Ten SEC school. FSU and Clemson should be ranked lower. FSU beat Clemson and that's it while Clemson's beaten nobody. Out of the 12 teams in the ACC, only five have winning records (three more are 5-5) and only two have more than six wins. I pointed this out in last weeks thread but who has South Carolina beat? Georgia and that's it. They've also lost twice instead of once for FSU. How about georgia? They beat Florida and no one else. Both teams also got completely blown out in 2 of their 3 combined losses. Florida state lost by 1 point.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how the Bears only scored 6 points. They had 13 possessions and only 2 started at the 20 or inside (ok one was at 21 and another at 23) Look at every starting field possession for Chicago last night: CHI 37 HOU 45 HOU 38 (FG) CHI 20 CHI 49 CHI 21 CHI 23 CHI 38 CHI 48 (FG) CHI 38 (missed FG) CHI 14 CHI 25 CHI 38 4-13 possessions started at midfield or in Texans territory, 8-13 possessions started at our own 37 or better and only 1 drive started inside the 20. And 6 points and what 1 trip to the red zone? Despite all this great field possession we only had 4 drives lasting more than 23 yards and 8 that lasted under 15 yards.

Quite the irony that this is coming from the guy who cried about whiffing on the cant miss pitching prospect out of Korea. Nah, that didn't happen. Like I said, you completely whiffed the whole conversation there and, as per usual, made something up. The team has plenty of flaws. The consolation is I can witness spazzes spazzing over it. Interesting. I guess everybody but you "whiffed" on that conversation. One of the many reasons why I lost my cool during last nights game is the same problem reared its ugly head for this franchise. The never ending botched evaluation of personnel on the offensive side of the ball. Kellen Davis was so hyped by this team to be a good TE, Hester is trotted out every Sunday at WR and the Oline are just a few examples. I hope going forward Emery can change this. I'm not high on Shea succeeding long term and I do wonder if Lovie will ever be have a successful offense to go along with his good defenses. I'm pretty sure the main reason you lost your cool during the game is because you always lose your cool during games, win or lose.

I asked this last night but can anyone remember a Bears loss that was back and forth and the Bears just happened to falter in the end? I don't know maybe that is not possible to do anything but dwell on nothing but negatives when the team loses but it feels like whenever we lose its an anemic offensive performance with lots of stupid errors we almost never do, etc.

Going into this 2 game stretch I thought the Bears would split and for some reason I always had a better feeling about the SF game. I say regardless of who starts at QB for either team the Bears will win this one. Something like 17-13 sounds right. The offense legitimately concerns me in many areas including play calling, the offensive line, the TEs and now the backup QB but in still holdin onto my belief that there is still a higher ceiling and can and likely will be reached by the end of the year.

I'm like shaking from excitement while downloading Doug and OBs post game from last night. They always have a way of making me feel better about Bears losses by venting about all the things I want to vent about.