soccer10k

Watch your language. Using an asterisk in place of the letter is considered the same as using the word. And everybody, enough with the back-and-forth insults. Commenting about someone's IQ, telling a poster to stick it with their smileys, etc. is uncalled for. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, and to disagree with others' opinions, but you do need to be civil when disagreeing. I think jjgman21 and I were able to come to a peaceful solution to our argument even though it got fairly heated. Your comments are well received and will be remembered but I would like to thank the mods (assuming some of you were watching the argument) for giving the two of us some leeway and allowing us to settle the argument on our own.

I definately didn't like it when he said "horses" either but didn't mind the injury part too much. Not great, but not horrible. well, len isn't wrong for pointing out that it isn't really fair to expect the cubs to do amazing when lee, wood, and prior all go down with injuries. the big problem is that, assuming those 3 are healthy, the cubs still aren't that good, and still have a horrible organizational philosophy when it comes to acquiring new players. It was more that he used the word "horses" and the fact that it's Dusty's word than what Len meant by using it.

I took it as you trying to say that because I was a Raiders fan that I had no right to comment on the Bears and Brian Griese. no, I'm an unpopular, argumentative poster, but I don't play that game. I can't stand it when posters tell each other they should not comment on something...with a couple exceptions (ie. demonstrations of hypocrisy or old worn out comments about 'can't walk across home plate.') sorry you took it that way. not how I meant it. Fair enough.

I took it as you trying to say that because I was a Raiders fan that I had no right to comment on the Bears and Brian Griese.

Not quite sure what you're trying to do with this considering I didn't bring up Billy Volek. do you think I am incapable of clicking on other threads? Yes. I think you are an idiot with a IQ of 45 and about 12 functioning brain cells. :roll: Decent, average, what's the difference? But, as was brought up in the other thread (assuming you were able to click on it and read it) Volek has been in that system for 4 years and hasn't been hurt. Grossman has missed a majority of 3 seasons - there is only so much you can learn from a clipboard - and Griese is new to Chicago. It isn't exactly a new idea that Spurrier quarterbacks don't perform well in the NFL. It's not something I just came up with some night. the obvious connotation of your statement about Volek is he is a capable NFL QB. the obvious connotation of your statements about Grossman is he is not a capable NFL QB. Volek has been in the system, perhaps not hurt, but he also hasn't played. so I guess he must be vastly more capable of picking things up from a clipboard than Grossman is. you acknowledge the change over in the system in Chicago, but apparently don't take that into consideration when coming to the determination that Grossman isn't a worthy NFL QB. at this point you're just being argumentative and trying to get into a pissing match with me as evidenced by your eyeroll and the statements the eyeroll pertains to. Have you heard of practice? I know Allen Iverson doesn't like it very much, but it does help. Who do you think ran the offense in practice when McNair wasn't practicing but was still starting every Sunday? Billy Volek!! The last time I checked, if you're hurt, you can't practice. That's what I meant. I'm not being any more argumentative than you are with some of your statements. Did you forget about this one: Last time I checked, I didn't have to be a Bears fan to discuss matters pertaining to the team. If I did, there wouldn't be fans of any other team besides the Cubs that post on this site now would there?

Hooray!!! :roll:

:shock: you didnt get the memo??? I got the memo. :D

Not quite sure what you're trying to do with this considering I didn't bring up Billy Volek. do you think I am incapable of clicking on other threads? Yes. I think you are an idiot with a IQ of 45 and about 12 functioning brain cells. :roll: Decent, average, what's the difference? But, as was brought up in the other thread (assuming you were able to click on it and read it) Volek has been in that system for 4 years and hasn't been hurt. Grossman has missed a majority of 3 seasons - there is only so much you can learn from a clipboard - and Griese is new to Chicago. It isn't exactly a new idea that Spurrier quarterbacks don't perform well in the NFL. It's not something I just came up with some night.

Not quite sure what you're trying to do with this considering I didn't bring up Billy Volek.

something besides "I think." You do realize this is my opinion right? My personal view on the situation? Of course it's what I think. I have watched the Bears, maybe not as much as Bears fans have, but I have watched enough to get a fairly good opinion on their team. I stated my opinion and you disagree with it. That doesn't mean I'm making a strawman argument and it doesn't mean my argument is incorrect. the strawman argument was you arguing that the Bears aren't good enough to win the superbowl. nobody ever said they were. it went from 'the Bears should be concerned about their quarterback situation' to 'the Bears aren't good enough to win the Superbowl' with little explanation of why suddenly that was the issue. you do realize this is NSBB, right? generally we back up our opinions with arguments supported by, you know, evidence. I could keep saying "I think Juan Pierre is a great baseball player," but generally that doesn't fly around here without backing it up. You do realize you're being an a$$ with this statement right? What stats do you want me to give you? Any stats I give you're just going to respond with a "sample size" argument so that rules out me using stats to attempt to defend myself. And that is a valid argument as well which is why I didn't even venture down that path. you've yet to back up your bleak assessment of the Bears quarterback situation with anything more than "I think." worse, re: Grossman it has gone from 'can he stay healthy and show what he can do' to 'I don't think he's a capable NFL QB.' I think Griese's career QB rating is on par with Tom Brady's. I think Rex Grossman hasn't played enough NFL football to make a full assessment of his abilities and that in the little he has played, he's had one NFL quality receiver to throw to in about two of those games. wait, check that, I don't think any of these things, I know all of these things and can back it up with verifiable evidence. thus, I think, considering how good the Bears defense and rushing game should be, their should be no real concern with the QB situation. and I'm just trying to flesh out issues and have a discussion here, you get pissy with me, I'm gonna get pissy right back. So my first post on a topic is "chiming in out of the blue." Is there a proper way to make a comment in a thread? I didn't think so. I addressed the situation that was being talked about and offered my input. That's all. When does "can he stay healthy and show what he can do" tell what I think about him as a player. All that statement means is that he hasn't had a real shot (re: full season) to show if he can play at the NFL level. I happen to think he can't, which is what I stated later. The only thing I didn't add, which I should have and remembered while I was at work, is the other reason I don't like Grossman as an NFL quarterback is because he came out of Steve Spurrier's Florida system. He played 2 years under Spurrier (not sure if he redshirted) and one under Zook. Spurrier isn't known for having his college quarterbacks become solid professionals. Sure he finished second in the Heisman voting as a sophomore but Danny Wuerffel won the Heisman at Florida and didn't amount to much in the pros. I'm not saying that's the only reason, but it's in addition to what I've already discussed. Look, we happen to have different views on this situation. As I said earlier, we're going to have to agree to disagree because you aren't budging and I'm not going to either. This is the end of the argument. EDIT: And are you really going to try to compare Brian Griese to Tom Brady? Griese has only played two seasons in which he played in 14+ games (or basically a full season) and put up passer ratings of 75.6 and 78.5. He had one year in which he played 13 games and put up a quarterback rating of 85.6. Brady, meanwhile has played 5 full years and put up ratings of 85+ each year. Griese only has 2 seasons in which his quarterback rating was better than Brady's worse season (85.7) and had one season (85.6) in which it was nearly identical. If Griese was good enough to be a starter, don't you think some team would have signed him to perform that job? There's a reason why he's a backup.

something besides "I think." You do realize this is my opinion right? My personal view on the situation? Of course it's what I think. I have watched the Bears, maybe not as much as Bears fans have, but I have watched enough to get a fairly good opinion on their team. I stated my opinion and you disagree with it. That doesn't mean I'm making a strawman argument and it doesn't mean my argument is incorrect.

wha-wha-wha-what? I guess I understand your argument now, but the top ranked scoring defense and second ranked yards defense returns all its starters and added a couple pieces. so if assuming incorrectly that the Bears defense is only "good" I guess I agree that the QB play won't be good enough. they won't be 2001 Ravens good, but they'll be alot better than I think you are giving them credit for. They'll have one of the top defenses in the league but I'm talking about all time. They aren't the 2001 Ravens. They aren't the 1985 Bears. I guarantee you that most people (i.e. non Bears fans) aren't going to remember the 2006 Bears defense like they do with those other two defenses. I don't think the Bears have a good enough defense to compensate for an average quarterback situation when they reach the playoffs. I don't think I'm undervaluing the Bears defense at all. I think they'll finish near or at the top in all the important defensive statistics. But that doesn't always parlay into a Super Bowl without a competant quarterback. so where is this conversation at? it started with a discussion about whether Grossman will be good enough to keep his job over Griese, after you said Griese will screw the Bears up in some way. to me that implies that the Bears will barely make the playoffs if at all, but then you conceded that they are a playoff team. somehow it has progressed into a strawman argument about whether the Bears are good enough to reach and win the Superbowl. I never said the Bears are a Superbowl contender. I think they have as good of a chance as any team in the NFC if some things go their way. I know you said earlier that they expect to win the Superbowl this year, but I don't know where that comes from. there are probably about 15 teams around football that have fan bases that expect them to win the Superbowl. as an organization, every team will put up the front that they expect to win the Superbowl. few expect to actually do so, and the moves the organization made in the offseason indicates to me that they believe they are still a year or two away. I'm just looking for a basis for discussion about the Bears QBs here. are you standing by the assertaion that Grossman is so bad he will be replaced by Griese by the halfway point and then Griese will screw things up, or are you saying the Bears QBs aren't good enough to win the Superbowl? there are two distinct assertions going on here, the former, I don't agree with, the later I don't think there is enough information to make such a prediction. if the later is your main point, it sort of obliterates the former as it implies the Bears QBs are good enough to get them to the playoffs, so I don't see why they should be all that concerned. I don't really like either Grossman or Griese as NFL quarterbacks. The Bears obviously like Griese as a solid backup because they wouldn't have picked him up otherwise. I don't think Grossman will perform well enough this year to keep his starting job, will make some bad mistakes that will lead to an average record to start the season, Griese will replace him and make mistakes of his own. It's a prediction. I don't think they are very good quarterbacks. What other explanation do I need to give you? This goes into my point about their defense. The Bears do have one of the best defenses in the league this year but it isn't an all time great defense. The defense, combined with the running game, is good enough to get the Bears to the playoffs likely by winning the horrid NFC North. The Packers and Lions aren't any good and I don't see Minnesota finishing any better than 9-7 so it will likely take just a 10-6 season for the Bears to get into the playoffs. This will give Griese/Grossman combo plenty of leeway for mistakes without causing the Bears to miss the playoffs. A very good defense and a solid running game is enough to get a team to the playoffs but without a competant quarterback, they aren't going to do anything once they get there unless they have a defense like the 2001 Ravens or 1985 Bears. I don't think the 2006 Bears defense isn't that good. Hence the reason I predicted them to not advance once they reach the postseason. I don't see how this is a strawman argument. I don't think the Bears quarterbacks are very good and I don't think their defense is good enough to compensate for this glaring weakness. I think their defense is good enough to lead them to the postseason but not good enough to help them advance. You happen to disagree with me. Great. That doesn't mean I'm making a strawman argument. I also don't understand why you think the moves they made in the offseason indicate that they think they are a year or two away. They got a backup quarterback that they think is solid enough to step in for Grossman if he gets hurt or doesn't meet expectations. They won the division, earned a bye last year, and return all of their key players. Wouldn't the next progression be to repeat this performance but win a playoff game? That puts them in the NFC tite game.

If MLB had real testing I wouldn't have wrote that. Wait, some guy in Brazil just tested positive and will be suspended for 50 games. The raid involving Grimsley opened everybody's eyes to the fact that pitchers likely take roids/HGH just as much as position players do. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that Prior did take steriods, growth hormone, or something along those lines. Fact is, we just don't know.

I definately didn't like it when he said "horses" either but didn't mind the injury part too much. Not great, but not horrible.

If you're talking payroll, the Cubs are much closer to the Yankees than the Marlins are. As for Girardi, all he's done is guide a team that started a ton of rookies and had a $15 million dollar payroll to third place in the NL East and a 54-61 record. I understand that the record doesn't sound like anything special but that team was expected to have one of the worst records in the major leagues this year. I would take Girardi.

wha-wha-wha-what? I guess I understand your argument now, but the top ranked scoring defense and second ranked yards defense returns all its starters and added a couple pieces. so if assuming incorrectly that the Bears defense is only "good" I guess I agree that the QB play won't be good enough. they won't be 2001 Ravens good, but they'll be alot better than I think you are giving them credit for. They'll have one of the top defenses in the league but I'm talking about all time. They aren't the 2001 Ravens. They aren't the 1985 Bears. I guarantee you that most people (i.e. non Bears fans) aren't going to remember the 2006 Bears defense like they do with those other two defenses. I don't think the Bears have a good enough defense to compensate for an average quarterback situation when they reach the playoffs. I don't think I'm undervaluing the Bears defense at all. I think they'll finish near or at the top in all the important defensive statistics. But that doesn't always parlay into a Super Bowl without a competant quarterback.

Not saying they will, but there are multiple teams that could put the Bears down 13-0 and keep them down. Also, don't forget that all it takes is a little luck as well. One tipped pass for a pick or one fumble recovery and you're in trouble. Not saying that's going to happen every game, but it could and you can't discount that possiblity. How about a team coming out on fire and running the right plays that the Bears don't expect and before you know it, the Bears are down 10 or 14 points. Seattle can run the ball all day with Shaun Alexander. They have a good enough passing game to get the job done and scored the most points in the league last year. Arizona has, quite possibly, the best WR combo in the league with Fitzgerald and Boldin and added Edge to that offense. The Giants have a solid offense with Manning/Barber/Burress/Toomer that can put up a ton of points. New England has a solid offense and I fully expect Corey Dillion to have a solid comeback year. Tom Brady also had probably the best season of his career last year. St. Louis has a solid offense with Bulger/Bruce/Holt/Jackson and can put up points quickly as well. Not saying that each team will steamroll the Bears but I'm saying that it could happen. I expect the Bears to go 10-6 or 11-5 this but think they will get bounced from the playoffs in their first game. but that could be said of any team in any year. any team that relies on ubber QB to throw his way to comeback victory is in trouble. I don't disagree with your assessment of what the Bears will do during the regular season, but I think they win a playoff game or two, assuming the defense shows up. keep in mind that the Bears first round exit last year had more to do with defensive failings than with QB play. the Bears QB is expected to put up 18-21 points a game without alot of mistakes. both are perfectly capable of doing that. the Bears QB play is way low on the list of concerns. rush blocking by the O-line, nickel back (and non-Vasher CB play in general) and getting healthy is the main concern. that and keeping Mike Brown healthy all year as IMO he is more important to the Bears than any other single player. My point with the QB situation is that the Bears do not have a quick strike offense. If they fall behind, they are in trouble. Other teams with good QB's (Manning, Brady, etc.) have the offensive firepower to strike quickly. Look at the Colts last year. If Vanderjagt makes that kick, the Colts send that game into overtime and the Colts should have put up 18 points in the fourth quarter. The Bears are not a come from behind team because they don't have a solid passing game. Relying on a running game and a good, but not great defense is wonderful, but it's unlikely to win you a Super Bowl. You need a great defense to make up for a lack of a quarterback and the Bears don't have a great defense. The 2001 Ravens had a great defense but Dilfer was a competant quarterback who played within their system and didn't make many mistakes. I don't see that with the Bears this year. Apparently we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Not saying they will, but there are multiple teams that could put the Bears down 13-0 and keep them down. Also, don't forget that all it takes is a little luck as well. One tipped pass for a pick or one fumble recovery and you're in trouble. Not saying that's going to happen every game, but it could and you can't discount that possiblity. How about a team coming out on fire and running the right plays that the Bears don't expect and before you know it, the Bears are down 10 or 14 points. Seattle can run the ball all day with Shaun Alexander. They have a good enough passing game to get the job done and scored the most points in the league last year. Arizona has, quite possibly, the best WR combo in the league with Fitzgerald and Boldin and added Edge to that offense. The Giants have a solid offense with Manning/Barber/Burress/Toomer that can put up a ton of points. New England has a solid offense and I fully expect Corey Dillion to have a solid comeback year. Tom Brady also had probably the best season of his career last year. St. Louis has a solid offense with Bulger/Bruce/Holt/Jackson and can put up points quickly as well. Not saying that each team will steamroll the Bears but I'm saying that it could happen. I expect the Bears to go 10-6 or 11-5 this but think they will get bounced from the playoffs in their first game.

Not to say you're accusing me of this, but I'm not jumping to conclusions based on this one preseason game. As I said, I've never been high on Rex and think he will be benched this year.

Was this directed at me or USSocccer? Either way, I'm not very high on Grossman and have never been high on him. I don't think he's that good of a quarterback which is why I'm never surprised when he doesn't play well. Because of this doubt, I predicted Griese would become the starter before the Bears play Miami. When you have a decent backup quarterback it gives you the option of replacing your starter if need be. So I'm not a Bears fan, what does that matter? That I can't offer my opinion on the team? FWIW, my dad is a Bears fan so I do follow them a little more than other NFL teams. you are predicting Grossman will screw it up and Griese will become starter, and earlier in the thread you said Giese will screw it up. sure its fine to offer an opinion, but it doesn't seem to be offering an opinion. it seems more like baseless predictions of doom and gloom. the Bears are not quarterback centric. the team is designed to win with defense and rushing. all the quarterback has to do is not screw things up and maybe make a play or two in a game here and there. they won a lot of ballgames with terrible QB and special teams play last year. they return 22 starters. why suddenly they should be all that concerned with their QB when the two they have to go with are exponentially better than the one they had last year is a mystery to me. Did I say this pages ago because I didn't say it recently? If I did, thanks for reminding me. To defend that point, I'm not a big fan of either quarterback. What is wrong with thinking Grossman will screw up, Griese will become a starter and won't play well either? It's not necessarily doom and gloom. I do think they will make the playoffs but you saw what happened last year right? 17-41 for 192 against Carolina. IIRC, Grossman at one point was something like 2-12 with 20 yds or something like that. If that team gets behind, and believe me they will at some point, they will have to throw the ball and rely on their quarterback - something I wouldn't be too confident in if I was a Bears fan.

To add anohter thing, the Bears as an organization expect to win this year and I think their fans expect them to win this year. If Grossman comes out and doesn't play very well and the Bears start off the year 3-3, 3-4, 4-3, I could easily see the Bears benching Grossman in favor of Griese to try and give the team a spark.

Was this directed at me or USSocccer? Either way, I'm not very high on Grossman and have never been high on him. I don't think he's that good of a quarterback which is why I'm never surprised when he doesn't play well. Because of this doubt, I predicted Griese would become the starter before the Bears play Miami. When you have a decent backup quarterback it gives you the option of replacing your starter if need be. So I'm not a Bears fan, what does that matter? That I can't offer my opinion on the team? FWIW, my dad is a Bears fan so I do follow them a little more than other NFL teams.

Two thoughts I have relating to this: 1. It's actually reason number 290820482099 why Dusty should be fired rather than reason number 290820482098. 2. And look who was number 2 on that list of BP's Pitcher Abuse Points: Carlos Zambrano.

It was bound to happen, acutally it should happen more. Everyone knows he has a puss arm and thus they all try to take the extra base. At some point someone had to bite off more than they could chew. I've been saying this for years and not just with Pierre. Players known for having good arms don't get run on very often so they don't have many chances to throw anybody out. Players known for having average to poor arms get run on all the time so they get more chances to throw somebody out and they are bound to get lucky and throw out an overzealous runner once and a while. A good example that I always use is Barry Bonds. He has an average arm but gets run on all the time and every once and a while, throws somebody out. But most of the time it's like Sid Bream all over again.

Yeah, I could have seen the Cubs running Mateo out there today for a few innings.