Bears should really consider going to Griese

[Nappy Roots]

Honestly, the Bears may be just a wildcard team in the AFC.

based on what?

the fact that they lost 2 games to the AFC? :rolleyes2

why base your opinion on those 2 games and not the 40-7 beating they put on the bills and the shuting out of the Jets?

 

[SkapePhin]

Grossman had some huge games earlier this year and now a couple of bad ones. You dont dump your starter for a couple of bad games. Grossman wont get benched, he will rebound for some good games. People act like the Patriots stink, the Bears lost a close game to a good team, big whoop.

These games are more than just bad, they are collosal meltdowns...

You can book this, the Bears will not win a playoff game with Grossman at QB if they face a pressure defense..

 

[Metal Panda]

Why is it rediculous? They're 2-2 against the AFC East alone. Imagine if they played SD, Denver, Indy, Baltimore, etc..

It's not as if the prior poster said "The Bears wouldn't be as good in the AFC". They stated the Bears would only be 5-5. That's a bit hyperbolic and far-reaching.

 

[Majpain]

The Bears Defense beats teh good teams while Grossman plays garbage man on the weaker teams. When the Bears play a decent defense they start to crumble. Its fact.

 

[dominizzo]

Grossman stinks!!! He cost Chi the game

 

[SCall13]

i dont think Griese is that much more accurate then Grossman. Griese just throws 3 yard passes every throw and Grossman throws 30 yard passes every time. the problem is Grossman goes deep almost every throw. how many of his INTs are short throws? then need to pull the reigns up on Rex and start throwing short stuff.

Griese's career completion percentage is over 63%. Not bad at all no matter how you spin it. It's also almost 8% higher than Grossman's. They're yards per attempt are pretty close with Griese's being 7.05 per attempt and Grossman's at 6.94. To me, there is a significant difference between the two overall. The biggest difference is that Griese is much smarter with his decisions.

 

[Mr.Majestik]

Not hyperbole

based on what?

the fact that they lost 2 games to the AFC? :rolleyes2

why base your opinion on those 2 games and not the 40-7 beating they put on the bills and the shuting out of the Jets?

How about the fact that in their last 27-games, the Bears are 20-7, and 5 of those losses were to AFC opponents. Denver, SD, Jax, NE, Indy, and Baltimore are favored, or even money bets against the Bears in any game they play. We can add Miami to that list since we put a number on them. Cincinnati would give them all they could handle. Last year Carson Palmer picked the Bears apart. The Steelers manhandled them, rushing for 200-yards against that vaunted defense. We rushed at will against the Bears. They live on turnovers, so whatever disadvantage the Bears are at because of Grossman is more then compensated for by their proclivity for collecting turnovers from their opponents. It's not hyperbole to argue the Bears would have a much worse record if they played in the AFC. They struggle against teams that can play good defense like them, and can force the run, which at least half of the AFC can do. The Jets had them 0-0 with 4:00 left in the third-quarter. Pennington threw two interceptions while driving for scores, once in the endzone, and another inside the thirty, that was the difference in the game since the Bears never turned the ball over themselves, and the Jets are at best a middling team in the AFC.

 

[Nappy Roots]

How about the fact that in their last 27-games, the Bears are 20-7, and 5 of those losses were to AFC opponents. Denver, SD, Jax, NE, Indy, and Baltimore are favored, or even money bets against the Bears in any game they play. We can add Miami to that list since we put a number on them. Cincinnati would give them all they could handle. Last year Carson Palmer picked the Bears apart. The Steelers manhandled them, rushing for 200-yards against that vaunted defense. We rushed at will against the Bears. They live on turnovers, so whatever disadvantage the Bears are at because of Grossman is more then compensated for by their proclivity for collecting turnovers from their opponents. It's not hyperbole to argue the Bears would have a much worse record if they played in the AFC. They struggle against teams that can play good defense like them, and can force the run, which at least half of the AFC can do. The Jets had them 0-0 with 4:00 left in the third-quarter. Pennington threw two interceptions while driving for scores, once in the endzone, and another inside the thirty, that was the difference in the game since the Bears never turned the ball over themselves, and the Jets are at best a middling team in the AFC.

i didnt read all that because what the hell does last year or the past 27 games have to do with this year?

 

[tmny99]

Griese is a very effective QB...it's too bad we couldn't protect his blind side when he was in Miami. Do you remember that game he started for us against the Chargers? Griese has been effective his whole career IMO.

 

[Mr.Majestik]

Re:

i didnt read all that because what the hell does last year or the past 27 games have to do with this year?

Because it's the same damn team. The same roster. The same scheme. The same opportunistic defense. The same losses to AFC opponents. How is it not applicable? This is the same Bears team from last year. But let's eliminate last year and just talk about this year, and let me be perfectly blunt about how how bad the Bears schedule has been. They're 2-2 against a mediocre AFC East, is it that much of a stretch to argue that if they had to play 12 AFC opponents instead of 4, they could very well be 6-5, or even 5-6 at this point? The Broncos, Jags, Colts, Bengals, Ravens, Patriots, Dolphins, Chiefs, Jets and Chargers are much tougher marks then the Niners, Lions, Packers, Cardinals, Vikings and Giants, six of the teams the vaunted Bears have fattened their record against. The lowly Titans are 4-7, but 3 of their wins are against the NFC for crying out loud, that how tough the AFC is. The Bears will finish the season with five games against teams that are a combined 19-35. They play in the worst division in football bar none. To say the Bears would get their clocks rung in the AFC is merely reiterating what's been happening to them for the past two years anyway.

 

[HysterikiLL]

OMFG.. Seriously, bench him. He SUCKS!

He is singlehandedly responsible for all their losses.

..and responsible for many of their wins. Even with the loss, they're 9-2. Grossman is Pro Bowl worthy, and all you guys saying he's "terrible" needs to watch some more footage.

 

[HysterikiLL]

These games are more than just bad, they are collosal meltdowns...

You can book this, the Bears will not win a playoff game with Grossman at QB if they face a pressure defense..

Skape, have you actually watched the Bears out of Miami and New England? He lead a game winning drive against Minnesota in week 2...other than that, he's dominated so much so that it's kinda hard to lead a comeback drive when you're up 40.

 

[Nappy Roots]

Because it's the same damn team. The same roster. The same scheme. The same opportunistic defense. The same losses to AFC opponents. How is it not applicable? This is the same Bears team from last year. But let's eliminate last year and just talk about this year, and let me be perfectly blunt about how how bad the Bears schedule has been. They're 2-2 against a mediocre AFC East, is it that much of a stretch to argue that if they had to play 12 AFC opponents instead of 4, they could very well be 6-5, or even 5-6 at this point? The Broncos, Jags, Colts, Bengals, Ravens, Patriots, Dolphins, Chiefs, Jets and Chargers are much tougher marks then the Niners, Lions, Packers, Cardinals, Vikings and Giants, six of the teams the vaunted Bears have fattened their record against. The lowly Titans are 4-7, but 3 of their wins are against the NFC for crying out loud, that how tough the AFC is. The Bears will finish the season with five games against teams that are a combined 19-35. They play in the worst division in football bar none. To say the Bears would get their clocks rung in the AFC is merely reiterating what's been happening to them for the past two years anyway.

oh its the same team?

they got a 4th round rookie still starting 13 games at QB this year? OK. they still got a nobody in bernard berrian? ok. they had a 9 sack rookie in mark anderson last year? OK. they had ricky manning JR last year? OK. they still have that nobody desmand clark? OK.

man, i didnt know it was the same team!

thanks!

 

[Mr.Majestik]

Re:

oh its the same team?

they got a 4th round rookie still starting 13 games at QB this year? OK. they still got a nobody in bernard berrian? ok. they had a 9 sack rookie in mark anderson last year? OK. they had ricky manning JR last year? OK. they still have that nobody desmand clark? OK.

man, i didnt know it was the same team!

thanks!

The Bears are averaging .5 ypc less running the ball this year then last year. They are on pace to have fewer sacks with Mark Anderson on the team then they had without him on the team (they'll need to average 3 sacks a game in the next five weeks just to tie what they had last year.) The Bears are allowing .4 ypc more then they were last year, even though the doormats the Bears have been punishing have to abandon the run early. You bring up Anderson and Manning (who is primarily a lights out tackler) as proof the team is fundamentally different (and by implication, better) from last year, but failed to notice that in the areas where they have most contributed--pass rush and run defense--the team is noticeably worse. Now the Bears are a better passing team with Grossman then Orton, but that's only if you exclude the last six games, where Grossman is becoming positively Ortonesque. The guy has 8 TDs and 11 Ints in the last month and half, so again, I ask, how is this team fundamentally different from last year's? The best parts of the team are the same, the new parts haven't been a net gain in terms of performance, as evidenced by the fact that the Bears are worse then last year defending the run, rushing the quarterback and running the ball.

The passing offense, much better then last year at the beginning of this season, is now tapering off badly. The Bears can significantly pad their stats in the next five weeks, because as I pointed out, they are playing the worst schedule in the league, which is partially to credit for why they look so dominant, except when playing AFC teams which are considerably better from top to bottom then what Chicago plays on a weekly basis. It's almost absurd to argue that Chicago wouldn't be much worse off in the standings today if they had to play a combination of NE, Miami, Cincy, Indy, Baltimore, SD, KC, Denver, NYJ and Jacksonville, some twice, instead of playing Chicago's actual schedule, which includes: Detroit twice, Green Bay twice, Minnesota twice, St. Louis, SF, Ariz., Buf, NYG and TB. The idea of the Bears being 6-5, or worse, in the AFC should not be a controversial point. They should have lost to Arizona, and if Minnesota had a defense anywhere close to Baltimore, SD, Jax, Denver, Miami, etc, the Bears lose that one too. They play in the only division with three losing teams.

 

[SkapePhin]

Seriously, this guy SUCKS!

CP/A YDS TD INT
R. Grossman 3/12 22 0 3

Against the Vikings so far..

Im not even a Bears fan and this pisses me off! Bring on Griese!