Got a chance to watch Monday night's game a second time and a few things really stood out (aside from the quarterback).
1. If Corey Graham and Kevin Payne play as hard as they did Monday night, then both players are going to make this team and contribute on special teams. These guys looked like potential starters in a couple years.
2. It might be early but Fred Miller did not look ready to play a football game at right tackle. He looked slow and out of shape.
3. I love Devin Hester but why is he returning kicks in a preseason game? And worse...why is our number one receiver returning punts in the SECOND HALF of a preseason game?
4. Danieal Manning looks like just another brilliant Jerry Angelo draft choice. He might be the breakout star of this defense.
5. Dusty Dvoracek is the size of my apartment. And he looks like the real deal. Anthony Adams. Not so much.
6. I keep wondering what would have happened if Brian Griese relieves Grossman in the Packer game to end last season and plays really well.
7. Hey, that new-and-improved Kyle Orton looks a lot like the old-and-developing Kyle Orton.
8. 17 days till San Diego.
#2 Pissed off said . . .Havent been first in a while.
August 22, 2007
#3 Rancid said . . .Fred didnt look good, wheres Tait? Hester needs to return a few each game just to stay fresh and in midseason form.
Is is just me or didnt Griese come in during the Packer game? Or are you just stating that and wondering what would have happened if he played well and possibly the playoffs. I'll tell you this he wouldn't have looked as good as Rex did in the Seattle or NO game. So we would have lost to Seattle, and thats it, but I guess thats better than having such a horrible QB like Rex take us to the SB and win two games. Then you all would be hating on Griese and calling for Rex again.
August 22, 2007
#4 Midway Monster said . . .So is our starting tackle duo going to be Tommie and Dusty after all? I thought Walker would be the starter but is he just a rotation guy and/or Tommie's insurance policy? If so I am defenitely ok with that. I am quickly becoming a big Dusty fan.
August 22, 2007
#5 jeff said . . .17 days until we hear that sweet sound of a helmet-to-helment clash. Oh man I can hardly wait!
--Midway--
PS - I'd start Griese this week.
August 22, 2007
#6 said . . .i think the d tackles will rotate around tommie. darwin is a big time pass rusher so i'd look for dusty on first and second (short) and darwin on second (long) and third...anthony adams doesn't look like he can run ten feet
August 22, 2007
#7 Phil from SATX said . . .So now that we have an agreed-upon plan in place, here's the bad news. Griese throws interceptions. He does - lots of them, in fact. Plus he gets sacked a lot.
In the six games he played for the Bucs in 2005, in chronological order:
2-0-1-3-1-0 Note the 3 in there
In those 6 games, he was sacked this many times:2-1-2-3-3-1
Here's 12 games in 2004:
Ints:
0-1-0-0-1-2-1-1-3-1-2Sacks:
3-2-1-1-7-1-2-3-3-1-2 (yes that's a 7)The sacks are particularly concerning, that seems to paint the picture of an immobile QB, as PO'd points out. His 2004 season started great and then deteriorated. with 3 losses to end the season. This, coupled with his injuriesi in 2005, was undoubtedly what led the Bucs to not want to pony up for another free agent contract for him.
Now, interestingly, he has much more consistent QB ratings than Rex. In case you've forgotten the 2006 season for Rex, here it is, expressed as QB ratings, chronologically:
Regular Season
99 - 148 - 65 - 100 - 101 - 10 - 137 - 37 - 106 - 81 - 24 - 1 - 114 - 104 - 80 - 0Postseason: 77 - 73 - 68
I'm not going to post them, getting tired of writing all the numbers, but Griese's numbers are not surprisingly much more consistent from game to game.
So it looks like what you have with Griese is someone who will routinely make mistakes in a game (i.e. NOT a Trent Dilfer or a caretaker) but who follows up mistakes with good things. And obviously this is comparing apples with oranges, since TB was not a playoff team during this time. Was he sacked so much because his line sucked? I don't know.
With a better offense around him, would Griese play better? I think so (even if he didn't in that half at Green Bay).
This was a lot to read, I apologize. After having digested all that, I still think we've got to keep a short leash on Rex, in case there's more 10's, 0's and 1's in the ratings to come. And you may hate the ratings, but they do mean something, especially when they swing that much. BTW Griese's lowest rating in 2004 and 2005 was a 66 (and they won that game). He had many games in the +100's, so the possibility of upside is there, not just with Rex.
August 22, 2007
#8 mikebdot said . . .That was me.
August 22, 2007
#9 mikebdot said . . .The QB rating "swing" is bad data. There are floors and ceilings for each of the contribution stats and thus a game to game comparison is just stupid, from a data analysis viewpoint. You can't put control limits on data that has floors and ceilings. You can chunk games together maybe, but a single game QB rating means so little it boggles my mind.
Just posting the line 9/11, 60 yds, 0 TD, 1 INT, 3 fumbles tells me everything I need to know (and MORE than a QB rating, since QB ratings don't include fumbles). Watching the actual game tells me even more since you can see how receivers are running routes (if they show a MEANINGFUL replay) and what types of plays we're calling and the situations we find ourselves in (leading the league in first down penalties doesn't do much for a passer, especially when your first and 15 play is a run for 4 yards by Thomas Jones pretty much every time).
Also, check out this post by Woodk1:
And this "fumbling problem" that Grossman has? If found this great post over on cbfans.com from a poster Redawg (giving full credit) who did some great research. Look at THIS!:
Just out of curiosity - I went back to look at Rex's season too see how chronic his fumbling issue really was in 2006 and compare it to other quarterbacks. The results were quite surprising to me - with the reaction we all had to the BAD REX preseason game
Tom Brady --------- 12 fumbles - 4 lost
Drew Breeze ------- 8 Fumbles - 3 lost
Mark Bulger -------- 6 Fumbles - 3 lost
Brett Favre -------- 8 Fumbles - 5 lost
Brian Griese -------- 6 Fumbles - 3 lost ( 2004 with 11 starts compared to 16 for most
JP Lossman -------- 13 Fumbles - 7 lost
Eli Manning -------- 9 Fumbles - 2 lost
( ironically Eli had 2 fumbles this past week and lost one )
Peyton Manning --- 2 Fumbles - 1 lost
Ben Rothlesberg ---- 5 Fumbles - 2 lostRex Grossman ------ 8 Fumbles - 5 lost
(via http://www.webwaymonsters.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=28536&start=40 )
August 22, 2007
#10 Max said . . .The bad news about that data is I can't seem to find where they got their numbers...nfl.com and espn.com both say grossman had 3 fumbles last year. but i know it's more than that...
August 22, 2007
#11 Phil from SATX said . . .9. Special teams looked ALOT better than last game.
August 22, 2007
#12 mikebdot said . . .Mike, you can say the game to game QB ratings were meaningless, but in the extremely low numbers they totally correspond to our memories of absolutely horrific Rex games, so that represents some validity to me. Cardinals? (10) Miami? (37) Patriots? (23) Minnesota?(2nd game, 1) Green Bay (0)?
In what way did those numbers not reflect horrible QB play?
August 22, 2007
#13 mikebdot said . . .Apparently you have to look at each individual player on nfl.com. There isn't just a searchable page with all the data. poop
August 22, 2007
#14 Phil from SATX said . . .Phil: The low numbers just don't tell the story of the game. That's all I'm saying. Watch the game, talk about specific plays and then a conversation can ensue, but saying "0, 1, 23, 10, 37" doesn't MEAN anything. 3 INTs means something. 0 TDs means something. Together they contribute a 0 to the QB rating. Then "short passes to get his confidence up" MEANS his yards/attempt will suffer. Dropped passes by receivers means something. That's my point.
Talking about a rating over the course of the year takes away the ceilings and floors for most of the statistics since you will never get more than 11.75 y/attempt or below 5 (or whatever the floor is). Same with TD% and INT% and comp%. The floors and ceilings were set based on league averages back in the 70s and those have changed since.
A game by game "swing" means nothing since the "process" cannot be judged to be "in control" if there are artifical boundaries for floors and ceilings nor if it is a conglomeration of statistics.
A swing of 80 points will occur from having a 0 TD/3INT performance to a 3 TD/0 INT performance. That's "a lot". Big deal. It could signify we ran the ball into the end zone more and took more chances deep. It could mean he played terrible.
The question in my mind is "who do you want leading our team in the playoffs, because it's almost a certainty we're going to be there"? RIGHT NOW, I say "Grossman". In 7 weeks, I might not based on various things, not including the passer rating. If they call stupid plays and receivers don't fight for the ball I will say "oh, gee, those were stupid plays and the receivers didn't fight for the ball, go Rex!". Or I'll say "give Griese a shot". I can't wait to figure out which it is. 17 days.
August 22, 2007
#15 Al in WI said . . .Mike, I respect your point of view, you know way more about the QB rating than I do, but I'll still argue that those very low numbers are a proxy for "that was a world class suck ass performance" - so if one number can say that to you and be accurate, it IS a meaningful, if perhaps cryptic, statistic.
I think your point would be better served if used to argue that QB ratings between 60 and 100 are not meaningful to compare on a game to game basis - but the 0's, 1's and 10's? They are meaningful. That's the only reason I brought up the ratings, because the degree of QB futility in some of those games was virtually unparalleled in recent league history.
August 22, 2007
#16 mikebdot said . . .I have to agree with Mike on the qb rating thing. I think that is a over hyped stat. I would not classify the Miami game as a bad Rex game for several reasons. 1) Berrian & Bradley were hurt IE no speed, 2) Justin Gage dropped several key passes, 3) Moose had most drops of season, 4) Gage fumbled and ran wrong route on some ints.
And in the Seatle poff game, Berrian dropped a td, and Moose dropped a pass that became and int. Those can dramatically effect the stats.August 22, 2007
#17 mikebdot said . . .Phil: I guess what I was actually trying to say wasn't so much that there is NO meaning, but, that it's a superfluous number. Plus, the difference between a 0 and 50 QB rating is usually only comp% and Yards/attempt. Which are two very meaningless things when you throw 3+ INTs and have 0 TD passes. Plus, I was trying to make a point about the "big swings". Well, if you max out your TD and INT contribution to rating you are already at 79.1, if you hit a floor and throw 0 TDs and a few INTs it drops to 0. So, the fact that he had so many 0 INT/2+ TD performances "hurts" him in terms of "swing" since it made his rating so high. That's just foolish talk.
The bad thing about last season was his willingness to throw off his back foot to try to win the game in one throw. When behind he gets nervous. I think practicing THAT will be important this season. Getting an INT or two, but them calming down and running the offense anyway. If he can't do that, well, his rating will suck, but that is just how it works out, the meaning is in his lack of being able to handle the pressure. I don't care what the number turns out to be.
When Grossman throws picks, I don't like the idea of "babying" him by throwing 5 yard outs or short curls because those are plays that can easily be picked off. I also don't like throwing it deep because he'll almost certainly overthrow being all wound up. I like attacking the middle of the field, using play action, etc. Dumping off to a back is also not effective, especially since the other team looks for that. If we throw a bubble screen to Hester and it's picked off and returned for a TD after a poorish performance during the first part of any game this year, I'm not going to be very happy.
By the way, I don't know much about the QB rating, but I know a lot about statistics and the QB rating is just bad data for a game. It jumps around and has ceilings and floors for each contributing statistic, which is a big no no in statistical process control. If you average the QB rating for every game you will not get the same number as the QB rating for the season. Data like that just plain sucks to analyze.
August 22, 2007
#18 Phil from SATX said . . .Al: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I forgot to mention that game to game drops/drops that turn into INTs, etc. all are magnified but comparing QB to QB over the course of the season or a career, all that crap evens out.
August 22, 2007
#19 Phil from SATX said . . .Al, you impress me - what a memory for specific games! I can't do that - I'm too old and my youth was too enjoyable - so I'll give you Miami (which was the highest of the sub-50 games anyway). His rating in the Seattle game was actually decent, at 77.
Given your spectacular memory, though, I find it notable that you didn't try to defend any of the other low rating games - so I think you may have inadvertently supported my point. Not saying it's the be-all and end-all of stats, just saying that when a guy gets a 0, 1 or a 10, it is meaningful.
August 22, 2007
#20 Pissed off said . . .Mike, sorry, we were posting at the same time. You obviously know a lot about statistics and the game itself, as an intellectual exercise I think you should come up with your own statistical rating for QBs. Maybe you have to customize it by throwing out the INTs and incompletions that were clearly not the QB's fault. And fumbles should definitely be in there - and not just fumbles lost, because should it be to Rex's statistical credit that our guy happened to be closer to the fumble than their guy?
In fact, I know the QB rating is not perfect because it awarded Rex a 51 rating for his quarter and a half of futility. That seems way too high for what I saw - should have been about a 13. Now, rewatching him last night, I will say he made that one great improvised rollout play and hit Berrian - that was as thing of beauty. Brett Favre could not have done better (and I'm not sure that King Peyton could have even done it). So it wasn't all futility.
Dead serious about you coming up with a better system. That would have to be more fun to do than fantasy football (which is as detrimental to traditional football rooting as I-tunes is to the music album as an art form).
DAugust 22, 2007
#21 Phil from SATX said . . .For the love of God Phil we get it, you like to look at rating as an indicator of being horrible no matter how much proof Mike throws at you. End of story.
I agree with Mike that stats that use ceilings and floors are just plain bad indicators. I liked your analogy about the 0 TDs and 3 Ints VS 3 TDs and 0 INTs causing a swing of 80 points. Your right we could have ran the ball in several times and 3 picks might not be totally horrible depending upon the timing and where the pics occur and how they occur (WR drops or thru his hands, etc.). That sums up the validity of the QB rating for me. And I'm the guy who likes to look at Rex's 7 100+ rating games as ammo against Rex haters.
And lets face it, those games where he had a "so called bad rating", how many of those did we lose? How many? C'mon? Rex's performance couldnt have been as bad as the rating indicates since we won most of those games, despite the fact that a 1.3 rating or whatever seems to suggest that Rex took the snap and handed it off to the opposing team and then blocked for him too so the opposition could score a TD. Lets get real.
August 22, 2007
#22 Rancid said . . .I thought he did do that.
August 22, 2007
#23 Al in WI said . . .Let's all just watch all the games and then argue about how crappy he was/wasn't. The phrase "Yeah he played lousy but that last play to Berrian was great" is a better conversation than "Yeah he didn't play so well but he really pulled his rating up there with those meaningless completions toward the end"
I think the only reason we have this QB stat is so moron media talking heads can pontificate authoritatively about QB's they have rarely watched and how the performed in games that they didn't watch. It's not that the stat is meaningless, it's that someone tried to place a number value on the overall performance of a QB in a game. You can't do it! There's too many variables. If you really want to know how he played, Watch the game! So the stat sucks, because you can't quantify overall performance and be accurate enough to avoid controversy.August 22, 2007
#24 Phil from SATX said . . .I'm glad you're impressed Phil, others (namely exes) have been less so. Some have called it a bizarre Bears obsesion.
In other news, I'm feeling confident that we're going to win the division, beat Carolina in the NFC Championship Game, and take the Bowl over NE in a rematch of XX!! Does anything else matter?August 22, 2007
#25 mikebdot said . . .Yeah, this stimulating discussion started with a discussion of the fact that Griese does routinely throw picks, so we can't expect mistakes to be eliminated by going to him. It's inconsistency that we want to eliminate, and that's what Rex wants too - I heard him say that on the sideline.
And that reminds me that there may have never been a worse commentating crew than what they got going at the "new improved" MNF - makes you long for the days of Dennis Miller...
August 22, 2007
#26 Abe Gibron said . . .Phil: There are other rating systems out there. I don't really care much for them. I'm all about arguing over which QB is good for the offensive coordinator we have running the show. I just want at least ONE "entire game" performance to look at. I like speaking to actual games. I think the QB rating is a great stat for career numbers, which are talked about much later (i.e. after a QB retires for instance). The other QB rating systems that exists correlate pretty well go each other, so it's really a moot point regardless of which one you use.
I think the 5 games in question last season and possibly the SB are Rex's problem games. If he had, say, 4 or 3 terrible games this season and a decent showng in the playoffs (even if we lost somehow) I still see improvement. So, we'll see how the season starts off and if Griese gets in there, he gets in there. Either way, I'm watching every minute of every game that I can. If worst comes to worst I'll root for the Bears until they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs (hopefully it won't come to that, but you all get my point) and keep rooting for them anyway, just because I'm a crazy fan, that's what we do.
Bear Down!
August 22, 2007
#27 Abe Gibron said . . .If I am Jerry Angelo, then I am trying to swing a trade of either Alex Brown or Adewale Ogunleye before the season. Assuming of course the defensive line stays injury free the next couple weeks. Ogunleye is overrated and hasn't done a whole lot in a Bear uniform. If he can net a 2nd round draft pick from somebody? Hell yes I make a trade. Better still, if he can net a high quality offensive lineman prospect? Make the trade in a nanosecond.
Angelo has done a beautiful job in the draft the past few seasons. But I have nagging feeling that Dan Bauzain is going to be one of his rare busts. I guess you can't win them all.
Regarding Grossman, I'm sick and tired of reading on how great his offseason has been. Every team in the NFL says the same garbage about their QB. Grossman needs to prove it on the football field. So far, I am not impressed. And not surprised.
Kyle Orton, your table might soon be ready.
August 22, 2007
#28 Abe Gibron said . . .Any a few more things....
1. Daniel Manning needs to be on the football field. For the life of me I do not understand Lovie's fascination with Adam Archueleta. The guy doesn't have much in the tank and couldn't cover my 76 year old aunt if she were walking in quicksand and he was on a Harley.
2. The offensive line is old and thin. We are going to have to cross our fingers all season long that it holds together. One or two key injuries on the line, and its church for Bear chances in 07.
3. I like Greg Olsen. But I venture to guess he will have a very quiet rookie season because Ron Turner, Rex Grossman and the Bears simply won't get him involved much in the offense.
August 22, 2007
#29 Abe Gibron said . . .Any a few more things....
1. Daniel Manning needs to be on the football field. For the life of me I do not understand Lovie's fascination with Adam Archueleta. The guy doesn't have much in the tank and couldn't cover my 76 year old aunt if she were walking in quicksand and he was on a Harley.
2. The offensive line is old and thin. We are going to have to cross our fingers all season long that it holds together. One or two key injuries on the line, and its church for Bear chances in 07.
3. I like Greg Olsen. But I venture to guess he will have a very quiet rookie season because Ron Turner, Rex Grossman and the Bears simply won't get him involved much in the offense.
August 22, 2007
#30 Al in WI said . . .Any a few more things....
1. Daniel Manning needs to be on the football field. For the life of me I do not understand Lovie's fascination with Adam Archueleta. The guy doesn't have much in the tank and couldn't cover my 76 year old aunt if she were walking in quicksand and he was on a Harley.
2. The offensive line is old and thin. We are going to have to cross our fingers all season long that it holds together. One or two key injuries on the line, and its church for Bear chances in 07.
3. I like Greg Olsen. But I venture to guess he will have a quiet rookie season because Ron Turner, Rex Grossman and the Bears simply won't get him involved much in the offense.
August 22, 2007
#31 Pissed off said . . .We've all been battling, so I suggest we unite in ridicule of the Vikings and their new "Going to the Super Bowl", ad seen here. This is so stupid it's funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukmxbsmiV8g
August 22, 2007
#32 DTB said . . .Abe are you related to Kyle Orton? Kyle will never be a starter in this league unless an injury or probably in his case 2 injuries occur that get him in a game.
Is Dan Bazuin even on the team, is he hurt? Where the hell is this guy? I havent heard a damn thing about him.
Olsen will be a stud, It appears Dez will be starting, though I cant see why and by midseason Olsen will be getting the majority of the action at TE even if Dez continues to start.
I will now be ending each of my posts with the follwing until further notice:
#8 Through Thick and Thin (#8TTAT)
August 22, 2007
#33 Larry in da Loop... said . . .I could have sworn that there were other players on the field besides Rex but I'll join in on beating this dead horse. Its not like he didn't leave with a lead. His TEAM produced more points than the Colts, right? The bottom line is that his team wins ball games and at the end of the day, that is all that matters. We played 19 games last year and lost 4, yeah only 4. We used to do that in a month.
Lets not forget that our D couldn't stop Joey Harrington against Miami. Nor could we run the ball against NE. Or realized that we should have played all of our startes the entire game on NYE. And lets be ignorant to the fact that our D could not stop the run or get off the field in the SB. Contrary to popular belief Rex does not hold the fate of the Bears season in the palm of his hand. We are good enough that we can make up for one phase of our team not showing on a particular Sunday. But we just cant win when any combination of our team is playing poorly. Rex carries us at times, so does the D, and so does Special teams. Thats why its a team sport. Realize that all these stats that were created to justify how good a player is, are meaningless. So get over the QB ratings, efficiency bullshit. The Bears win, because of and in spite of Rex. Period.
August 22, 2007
#34 jdawg said . . .I love the "until further notice..."
Not sure if you're an attorney PO'ed, but that's an out clause if I've ever seen one.
For the record, I'm putting the Rex bashing on ice. This board clearly supports him, which is fine. When in Rome...
Let me just say, this Bears team is locked and loaded. Are there questions marks? Yes, of course. But we'll tear through the North like shit through a goose and good luck playing in this town in January, as NO and Seattle learned. Let's roll out to SD and get their papers asking why they ever fired Marty.
Bear Down.
August 22, 2007
#35 Bears Fan Bob said . . .Hey P.O., did you ever say to Rex, "you had me at oops"?
Just kidding
I've been in Rex's corner for a while, probably for the same reasons as everybody else -- the flashes of brilliance. I have to admit I'm getting a little tired of wondering if he's going to do something stupid, but this is the preseason. He's been better so far this preseason than last, and last season wasn't so shitty, if I recall.
August 23, 2007
#36 mikebdot said . . .Was anyone else screaming at the TV and ESPN for the lack of coverage of the Monday night Bears Colts game? They must have talk about 45 minutes during the 60 minute game about anything else except the game. They must have talked 20 or 30 minutes about Michael Vick alone. Then how about late in the 4th quarter when we picked one off while the commentators were talking about something else and we had to watch the game in a small square in the corner of the TV and one of the commentators after they zoomed in so we could see the play said “and now to get back to the Hall of Fame� like how dare they interrupt us with THE GAME. It’s a preseason game I know but I have seen many preseason games but this by far IS the worst ever. You could see more of the game on the news highlights (unless you were watching ESPN).
August 23, 2007
#37 Coxy said . . .Oh, yeah, there's a new topic:
1. On the flipside, Fassitt was awful. Glad McBride is making the roster and not him...
2. Fred Miller looked like he did last year...except he didn't go offsides...
3. Berrian fair caught a lot of those punts. I think they were giving him practice fielding them.
4. I love Daniel Manning. I also like Archuleta, but I don't think he really ought to start if Manning is playing better...not sure if that is true or not though. I like letting the coaches decide (are you listening you Rex haters?)
5. Go DD. Double D. That should be his nick.
6. Griese would have screwed up in the playoffs...like always.
7. I liked Orton at Purdue, but that was in college...in the Big Ten, and he didn't win anything important.
8. Woo hoo.
August 23, 2007
#38 Al in WI said . . .I agree about our line looking old. Early in the game there was one play where Sexy picked up the blitz nicely and dumped a screen to Cedric I believe. One of our blockers, maybe Miller, was out front and I believe attempting to run. I saw some limbs moving but not sure about the whole running thing. Anyway, Ced could not wait up for him to pick up the linebacker and was tackled much earlier than he should have been bc of the old man in front. Kinda has me worried.
#8TTAT
August 23, 2007
#39 mikebdot said . . .Agree with Bears Fan Bob, and others who have brought up how bad the ESPN coverage was. It seems like they are catering to the casual fan, or fans who don't follow the teams playing on MNF. I noticed this last year with the stupid celeb interviews. I like Tony, and Jaws, just not the on MNF with that approach. I don't want a talk show, I want a football game. I can't stand the wierd location of the clock and score either. I was a fan when they started putting the time in the top corner of the screen, but now I long for the days of the full screen of just game action!
August 23, 2007
#40 Coxy said . . .my bad, i don't think Griese has ever even played in a playoff game...is that true? I can't seem to find out any stats he has there, so, well, shit...
August 23, 2007
#41 mikebdot said . . .And for the record I loved Jim Miller. Guy won games. Despite the fact he was on Roids like Ayanbadejo.
August 23, 2007
#42 Larry in da Loop... said . . .About the score placement thing...I recall fox (and possibly some other network) back in the mid 90s having a transparent background with hazy white text that was damn near invisible when watching the play but you could read it if you looked at it. It would scroll through all the other games continuously. I thought it was the best graphic ever and it disappeared in favor of the goddamn robots they have jumping around like Kansas City fa..., well, don't want to offend any homosexuals. I'm sure Gary, Larry, and Harry might take offense...
Where is 'packisback' when you need a punchline?
August 23, 2007
#43 Midway Monster said . . .Glad to hear you're not leading parades through Boys' Town mikedbot. After that line... "which is a big no no in statistical process control...," I figured you were either gay or not straight.
A "big no no..."
Wow. What, are you 2 years old?
Go Bears.
August 23, 2007
#44 Phil from SATX said . . .Yeah - yeah - I see all the statistics. you know what they say about Stats: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics (Or as Woody Hayes once said when asked about statistics "a man drowned in 2 inches of water once").
I said my piece on the QB situation and I'll let that stand. (plus you all know how I feel that the QB position is over emphasized, over sexed up, and over discussed).
On the (very) positive note: I love it that we have a much better & faster Offense - Our Special Teams rock (and watching Hester accelerate get me psyched every time) - Lastly, our Defense looks like it will be in tune come the day we play the Bolts.
I am optimistic. A few more tune ups and cuts to go before Sept 9th & life will have new meaning again. By god I love this sh&% don't you.
--Midway--
August 23, 2007
#45 Rancid said . . .Mike, looks like Griese has never been in a playoff game - used the individual game stats on nfl.com. Not good experience there, Rex's up to 4 - 2 and 2 career.
Did you really want to invoke the name PisB - isn't that a little like sitting in the closet saying "I believe in Mary Worth"? Guess you like to live dangerously.
Speaking of Midway's quote on damn lies and statistics, I heard that again on morning radio - Steve Czaben had Chris Landry on and they used that phrase to scoff at the comparisons between Rex's first 23 games and Manning's first 23 - pretty rude stuff which they didn't elaborate on, just snorted. Chris Landry has never liked Rex.
I think the most exciting thing on D so far has been Double D - he sure looks like the real deal. Looks wide and mean. Bring on Saturday night - it's the famous 3rd game of preseason, the one that everybody knows is for real! ...is bullshit! Bullshit!
August 23, 2007
#46 jdawg said . . .Glad to hear that new topics other than Rex can be discussed. I tried bringing up Dusty and the tackle position at the beginning of this post but then we waded into the pit of QB ratings. One thing I wondered about in Abe's post (26,27,28) . He says:
"I do not understand Lovie's fascination with Adam Archueleta. The guy doesn't have much in the tank and couldn't cover my 76 year old aunt if she were walking in quicksand and he was on a Harley."
Now I like a good anecdote as much as the next guy but I tried to picture this one and it didn't work out. If the 76 year old aunt was walking in quicksand, how would the Harley be helpful? Wouldn't they both just sink? Anyway, I guess I bring it up cause I'm fairly excited about AA. If we had gotten him last year we'd all be really pumped up about it. Instead he get crapped on in Wash for a year and we get him at a huge discount. I think he and Brown are going to be a great tandem. With that said though, obviously if Manning plays better, AA sits. I just don't think we can know that yetAugust 23, 2007
#47 Phil from SATX said . . .Something occured to me this morning: If Rex fumbles the snap a couple of times during the 49ers game Jay Marriotti's head may very well detach itself from his body, be translated up unto the heavens, and form a bright shining star.
fumble Rex, fumble
August 23, 2007
#48 Pissed off said . . .Excellent point Rancid - but what if Dikka was driving the Harley? All bets are off then.
Didn't understand that Archuleta bash either - clearly we haven't seen enough of him to know, and from all reports I have read the coaching staff is thrilled with what he brings. I haven't been able to see him because my 36" TV has been rendered to an 11" with the ESPN coverage. Let's also remember that Abe Gibron was not at the pinnacle of Bears' coaching prowess - we used to call him Ape Gibbon as kids (and that was way before Animal Planet).
Kudos to jdawg for a very funny opener, even if it was at PO'd's expense.
Here's what I think is going to happen in the opener and beyond. Despite the early success last year on the long strikes to Berrian, Turner is going to ever so slightly tune down the long stuff in recognition of all of the other offensive strengths. Playing with short fields from the get-go, Rex will turn into the best of Brady and Manning in completing passes to many different places. Yes, most will be shortish, but the defenses will never know where the ball's going and be unable to game plan for it. We'll be looking at lots of 4 to 12 yard gains, moving the chains. Ced and GO will be the go-to guys to get us in the end zone. Which will happen lots of times.
We ARE going to beat the Chargers in SD to start the year. After that it gets easier.
August 23, 2007
#49 Pissed off said . . .I agree on letting the coached decide who to play. I'm sure AA will be good but I was pimping D. Manning as soon as we got AA and the fact that he's young and improving and man is he ever. Maybe Manning should start, maybe not but I think AA will be a decent insurance policy in case Brown goes down and they do some position moving. I also really like McGowan at safety.
Alright enough with the cheapshots at me and the recognition of the cheapshots. I'll give comebacks if you want. And for the record, the time I became the #1 Rex fan TTAT is when he hit Rasheid for a TD in a comeback win at the Metrodome, a game I attended. But I really have been on his bandwagon since I heard "with the 22nd pick......."
#8TTAT
August 23, 2007
#50 JB said . . .I agree on letting the coached decide who to play. I'm sure AA will be good but I was pimping D. Manning as soon as we got AA and the fact that he's young and improving and man is he ever. Maybe Manning should start, maybe not but I think AA will be a decent insurance policy in case Brown goes down and they do some position moving. I also really like McGowan at safety.
Alright enough with the cheapshots at me and the recognition of the cheapshots. I'll give comebacks if you want. And for the record, the time I became the #1 Rex fan TTAT is when he hit Rasheid for a TD in a comeback win at the Metrodome, a game I attended. But I really have been on his bandwagon since I heard "with the 22nd pick......."
#8TTAT
August 23, 2007
#51 Phil from SATX said . . .Rancid, I thought the same thing. I'm thinking the Harley would be a poor choice of locomotion for quicksand as it is heavy and would, I would assume, sink faster. A better choice in this case would be a hovercraft. Replace Harley with hovercraft and it's a very funny burn.
That being said, Abe, you're way off base. I'm excited about AA. Manning will get on the field...he will definitely be in there on passing situations. But AA brings a very exciting element to the game. AA, Brown, and Manning are going to be a fantastic rotation...and dont forget, if peanut or vasher need a blow, manning is probably our best backup corner.
And whoever mentioned the trading of brown and wale...shut up. Seriously, this is a 3-man rotation at DE...I love it! Wale hasnt posted gaudy sack totals but he's good and I expect a big year from him. Plus, AB and MA are both just as good. Three man rotation keeps everyone fresh and insures depth. NO TRADING! GET IT OUT OF YOUR HEAD RIGHT NOW!!!
August 23, 2007
#52 Pissed off said . . .Strong article in Trib today from Mike Downey about easing up on Rex. Very thought provoking - kind of makes me rethink my knee jerk rejoinder - which has been it doesn't matter how many other shitty QB's there are out there, none of those are SB teams.
However, just because we are a SB team, doesn't mean we can snap our fingers and get a Peyton or a Tom Brady. We already went up against a Drew Brees and Rex beat him. Is there really some reason to think that Philip Davis or Alex Smith are the second coming of Manning and Brady?
The point is there are not very many very good QBs out there. Rex may be the best we can hope for - and my analysis on Griese, as boring as it was, shows me that he's probably not the cat's meow either. Rex, you're probably our only chance this year, PLEASE don't F it up. Turner, help him out. Pep, show us why we hired you. Receivers, don't drop his balls if they are anywhere close to you. Moose, tackle the damn guy if he intercepts it right in front of you.
Thanks, Downey, I needed that.
August 23, 2007
#53 jeff said . . .Agree Phil, I did read the Downey article, now dont you feel just a little stupid reacting the way you, and several others did? Snap judgements are usually not good judgements. Things have obviously cooled down now. In the article it states that the Bears are a boring team so we have to find something to talk about that gets us going. Rex is always that topic, ALWAYS. I dont even know what else to say, everthing Downey said in that article is what I've been saying before, from the snaps not being totally his fault to other teams QB situations and how ours is actually quite favorable, all of it. All good points.
#8TTAT
August 23, 2007
#54 Phil from SATX said . . .i'd like to make it very clear that downey's article in no way effects any of my thoughts. i could give two shits about any other nfl team. and his commentof "why is no one calling for olin kreutz to be benched" belongs in the pantheon of idiocy. they had ten closeups of rex fucking the snaps up. and olin kreutz is one of the league's best centers.
August 23, 2007
#55 mikebdot said . . .I don't really feel stupid, I have a pretty thick skin and love myself lots. Flip flopping is an art, don't you think?
However, I still think you are right, and you've been saying it all along. Seriously, the switch that flipped for me was his run-down on how many other less-than-great QBs there are, right now, throughout the league. That fact alone doesn't help the Bears but it does help to temper expectations. It will suck if we don't win the SB this year and if Rex plays a big part in that but if that happens, it's back to the drawing board anyway. As in Who's the next great QB out of college that we won't have a chance at given our draft position and that will take a bunch of years to get ready anyway.
If we get bored before Sunday (when ex-pats get to see the Saturday game) we can start a poll on what QBs would we trade Rex for right now to enhance our chances of winning a SB.
There are some, but I bet the list is not that large, even for Rex haters.
August 23, 2007
#56 Phil from SATX said . . .Jeff,
At most, Grossman fucked up a single snap. The other snap was completely Kreutz's fault. It should have been a false start, plain and simple. The ENTIRE LINE moved before Kreutz moved the ball. Watch the replay for yourself on chicagobears.com highlights. It's 100% clear.
Fumbled snaps happen, get over it.
August 23, 2007
#57 Pissed off said . . .Jeff, did you read the other coverage about various Bears talking about Rex, including Kreutz? Even though I previously brought up the concept of Kreutz sabotaging Rex, I thought those comments in support of Rex sounded genuine (which I could not say about Urlacher's sideline interview). It truly seems the team's behind him, and this team showed last year they were not above picking sides when there was a position controversy. So if they truly thought Griese was better, don't you think we'd get a whiff of that?
August 23, 2007
#58 Jimbo said . . .Good thought Mike. I dont think anyone is seriously sabatoging Rex but deep down I'm sure theres someone who doesnt like the guy, hell theres probably guys on the team who dont like several players but that doesnt mean they cant co-exist on this Super Bowl bound team.
And Phil I love the idea of making a list of QBs in the NFL that we would rather have lead the team then Rex. We can all throw in our names, hell I love Rex to death but I'll list mine: Palmer, Manning (peyton only), Brady, Brees, McNabb (if I get a guarantee he's healthy), Bulger, and probably Hasselbeck.
I might also consider Rivers, Romo, V. Young(just havent seen enough of those three to say for sure due only one year behind them each) and just maybe Kitna(but age is a factor and I also think he looks better than he is because he has had such great offensive weapons around him in Cincy and Detroit)
#8TTAT
August 23, 2007
#59 jeff said . . .Here's my list of QB's I'd rather see lead this team:
Brian Griese
Kyle Orton
Chris LeakAugust 23, 2007
#60 Pissed off said . . .why does everyone on this site insist on treating grossman like he didn't suck at an all-time level for 8 weeks last season? he set records for sucking. i root for him as hard as any of you but at some point you have to look at the screen and say, "wow, that guy sucks."
August 23, 2007
#61 mikebdot said . . .Funny Jimbo, really. Typical Rex haters: Do you have a real list or are you too scared to make the list because it will be so short that it will prove your own hatred for Rex unwarranted?
#8TTAT
August 23, 2007
#62 mikebdot said . . .I also want to make another point regarding Rex's poor performances. The first Min game wasn't "poor", but more like average, but I'll go ahead and include it.
23/41 vs. Min (game 1). We had 18 rushing attempts for 54 yards (3 yards/attempt).
14/37 vs. Ari. We had 12 rushing attempts for 47 yards (3.9 yards/attempt).
18/42 vs. Mia. We had 28 rushing attempts for 103 yards (3.7 yards/attempt).
15/34 vs. NE. We had 33 rushing attempts for 145 yards (4.4 yards/attempt).
6/19 vs. Min (game 2). We had 21 rushing attempts for 92 yards (4.4 yards/attempt).
2/12 vs. GB. 14 passes vs. 12 rushes in the first half. I think we actually moved the ball fairly well with the run.
Also, the passing attempts obviously don't show how many times he went back to pass in total as he threw INTs and was sacked on occasion. Don't feel like looking all that up. Regardless, my point is that in at least 3 of those games we threw way too many passes. If we're a "running football team" why would that be the case? Seriously, if they want Rex to be a "game manager" perhaps they should call "game manager" type plays. I am growing quite tired reading about Trent fucking Dilfer. He got lucky that his defense had 10 INTs in 4 playoff games and returned 2 of them for TDs. Also, he went up against the drunk Kerry Collins and the suck ass Giants in the "big game". They were awful that year and had no business representing either conference, let alone the "weaker" one. You can't tell me that Baltimore team beats last year's Colts if they could somehow meet in last year's super bowl. Especially, if, say, they didn't have Ray Lewis and some other key member of their defense.
Anyhow, just wanted to analyze those games a bit. The overall point being "why didn't anyone say Thomas Jones wasn't performing well enough getting less than 4.0 yards per carry in three of those games? It's probably because the pile was moving the wrong direction most of each of those games. If you give the RB a pass you should give the QB a pass.
As for the GB game to end the year, that 75 yard TD that Griese threw inflated his stats. The rest of the game he was just as awful as Rex. I don't recall that particular play because I was at a party and was drunk, but was it a great pass or were the 75 yards more of a function of yards after the catch?
August 23, 2007
#63 JB said . . .Jeff, what 8 games are you talking about? I listed the 6 problem games. Do you want to count the SB? Did you notice that every pass thrown past 20 yards by BOTH QBs was incomplete, with the only exception being the wide open Reggie Wayne almost stumbling as he waits for the ball as it sits up in the air waiting for a defender?
We had some piss poor play calling in the Super Bowl. I'll include that one:
20/28 for Rex (inflated due to end of game, yes, i know this, point being we had 28 passes!) and 19 rushes for 111 yards. That's 5.8 yards per attempt. Why run routes down the field when it's fucking raining? How fucking stupid is that? How can you expect a QB to lay off a slightly open receiver and watch the pass turn into a nasty piece of shit as it sails towards him? Just like Manning's passes, even his TD pass. If the run is working stick with it.
The play that killed us was the pick-6. I understand Grossman's explanation of what he was doing. He ran towards the sideline and then slowed because he thought he might cut back, then it was too late when he didn't. Rex is slow as hell. The receiver should have tackled him.
Why can't you just wait until he doesn't play well against at least ONE regular season opponent, namely, the Chargers? Is that not a perfect test to see what's up?
August 23, 2007
#64 Rancid said . . .Phil, who is Phillip Davis?
QB's I would honestly rather have than Rex in this order;
1. Tom Brady
1a. McNabb
2. P. Manning
3. Brees
4. BulgerOthers I'd consider because of potential;
1. Brady Quinn
2. Matt Leinert
3. Vince Young
4. Alex SmithIf JA can pull that trade off, great. You know who I wouldnt want on my team: Favre, Tavaris Jackson, Jon Kitna, Delhomme, Harrington, Garcia, E. Manning, Jason Campbell, Tony Romo, M. Hasselbeck.
August 23, 2007
#65 Jimbo said . . .Jeff I do agree with you. I hold to a Bad Rex / Good Rex philosophy. The games you refer to are the Bad Rex games, in them I will gladly and freely say aloud "wow, that guy sucks". But as I have already stated, I don't see an alternative (this year) to hoping and believing that Good Rex shows up for good and takes us to the big one. I think you have already said in here before that you would love for Rex to be our guy and be a Pro-Bowl QB. I just wanted to lay it out there as I have before that I am not a blind supporter, but I truly believe that for us to win the SB this year, this is the only way. I don't see Griese doing it. So it has to happen. If that makes me a Rex supporter, then I guess I am. However, all people who are currently in favor of keeping Rex as the starter are not necessarily blind to his faults and willing to have his name tatooed on their ass. I just have to hope he can come through. Maybe it sets me up for a possible depressing suicide later in the season/postseason but it beats having no hope at all.
August 23, 2007
#66 Max said . . .My list is damn near exactly the same as the 2006 QB Rating list. And that being the case, that puts just about every other NFL QB above Rex. Now you geeks are going to come back and say how that stat doesn't mean anything and blah, blah, blah. Funny, how come POed's list includes QB's who dominate that "meaningless" stat. Whether the stat has flaws or not, year in and year out it reflects the best quarterbacks in the league. Funny how that works. Now, if Grossman can get his shit together, Jeff and myself and the rest of this town will rally around him like he cured the common cold. But until then, he deserves whatever heat is thrown at him, be it on this blog or in the local media or on ESPN - The Total Sports Network.
One final question about Rex... why is he going into his contract year? When have you ever heard of a team not locking up their starter before he reaches the final year of his deal? Could it be because the front office has some major concerns about him? Could it be that Angelo, who seems to know a whole hell of a lot about football, is not sure he wants to tie his future to such a wildcard?
I like Grossman and the author of this blog likes Grossman and this city likes Grossman.
But we like the Bears more. The end.
August 23, 2007
#67 jeff said . . .I am a Rex supporter until about 3 bad (regular season) games in. Then we can talk.
August 23, 2007
#68 Phil from SATX said . . .by the way, i just like stirring up PO'd. it's pointless to debate a quarterback situation that won't change. but it's fun when the number of words in PO'd comments increase. give the site fire.
August 23, 2007
#69 Pissed off said . . .JB, you don't know who Philip Davis is? QB of the Bismarck Thunderbirds, QB rating of 146, perennial Pro Bowler?
I meant Philip Rivers.
August 23, 2007
#70 jdawg said . . .I swear to God Jeff this is the last time I'm going to explain it. We know he had bad games. An all time record for sucking? Though that phrase shows the cold hard facts of the games he performed poorly in we did still win most of them and I'll say again its not all his fault.
Its a team sport, WRs drop passes, run wrong routes, etc that contribute to him sucking but yeah I'll agree he was bad in some games. That said, and to answer your question we are not naive enough to only take the bad games and look at it as the guage for what kind of QB he is overall, like you or other Rex haters might do. We have seen the good flashes, great flashes and competent play that he has proven he is capable of. His great flashes make him look like he could be the next great NFL QB and we hang on to that and use it as hope that eventually with enough experience he can develop into that great QB full time, without the bad rex games (or at least not as bad or not as often). 3 or 4 years from now I wont be saying this very thing because he will have had enough experience but right now, starting his 2nd full year, yeah thats my opinion.
#8TTAT
August 23, 2007
#71 JB said . . .Just got my Sporting News in the mail. Guess what the headline is of the main NFL article:
Rex 'n' Pep
I shit you not.
August 23, 2007
#72 Phil from SATX said . . .I love the stance... "If Rex turns out to be great, we'll cheer just as much as everyone else" What was it Jimbo, like he cured the common cold. But until then you want his head on a platter. That is what we call riding the fence. You need to either stake your claim as against him regardless of what happens or support him right now and go down in flames if he proves me and PO'd (and others) wrong.
I'm sick of this...oh we'd love to love him but right now I want Griese, but if he does well, then I'll love him and pretend like i supported him the whole time... you can't have your cake and eat it too guys. Make a stand.
August 23, 2007
#73 mikebdot said . . .That article on "Rex n Pep" is available on the Sporting News website. Note that Steve Spurrier uses the word "no-no" as well. So you're in good company Mike. Sounds like Pep's helping. I'll comment again that despite all the drops in the Colts preseason game, Rex appeared to be more effective at improvising than all of last year - so maybe Pep is paying off.
August 23, 2007
#74 JB said . . .JB says: You're either for us or against us.
Um k.
This whole "who you got?" thing is so silly. I got whoever performs well in practice. I got whoever Lovie chooses. I got the guy who gives us the best chance to win. I got Rex.
I think the first 3 games will be Rex's make/break games. If he plays terribly in all three and we lose all three, he's out. If he plays terribly in 1 of the 3 and we win all three (or even just 2), it's just like last season. Personally, I enjoyed last season. I didn't join this forum until very late in the season, so I have no idea what y'all thought until that point, but I was all about Rex. I would have been willing to see Griese start the last two games, just to give him reps in case Rex looked terrible in the playoffs, but in the end, I trust Lovie.
This year, I'm no different. I believe in Lovie.
The only time I don't like Lovie is when he is trying to figure out whether or not to throw the challenge flag. He looks like a doofus. He's also not very good at managing the clock late in the first half (just my opinion) or near the end of the game. I like clock management skills. It's why I can actually stand watching the Colts. They almost always score to end a half.
August 23, 2007
#75 Pissed off said . . .oh come on mike, that's not what I said. I really don't like the wishy washy statements that some people are posting. You can't ask for a guys head but say you'll love him if he doesnt get pulled and he plays well. Thats all I'm saying. I honestly don't mind the Rex bashing...some of it has been funny, but if you're against him, you're against him. Your ticket on the train will not be given back to you once you tear it up. But you know, I do like your statement of having faith in Lovie / JA...I believe in those guys and their decisions.
August 23, 2007
#76 Phil from SATX said . . .I just gotta say mike that I think your ideas are very flawed. You need to be for Rex or not. Yeah I get it your for whatever the Bears do but you still cant like Rex when he's in there cuz Lovie puts him there then be against him if he gets pulled and sits on the bench. You either think Rex has it or you dont, regardless.
And your "make or break first three games" shit is ridiculous. Look at how fucking good he was the first 5 or 6 or whatever games it was last year. Then he started to throw in the stinkers. You know damn well you'll jump off his bandwagon the first time he has a shitty outing even if that doesnt come till week 5, 6 or 10. So your saying if he's stellar weeks 1-3 that gives him a pass for you to like him and stick by him the rest of the year even if he sucks it up? Sometimes I dont get you man, please clear it up for me.August 23, 2007
#77 JB said . . .Mike, you're okay. That shit from PO'd's a
no-no on this site.I just had an epiphany. And it actually comes from a Gregg Popovich quote. The Spurs lost to the Mavericks in Game 7 in the conference semi-finals in 2006. Afterwards, when asked whether he needed to revamp his roster to get more athletic in order to get over the Mavericks, his answer was
"we lost a series in Game 7, by 1 point. So I guess we need to get 1 point more athletic, right?"
Here's the epiphany. We almost won the Super Bowl. With Rex at quarterback, including all the crappy games. So what do we need to win a Super Bowl this year?
Just a little more.
So if collectively, the whole team can give just a little more, we'll have our own Super Bowl to celebrate. Rex can have the exact same season as last year, plus just a little more, and we'll win.
(light bulb going off) I'm a Rex supporter. And I'll stay one.
Sign me,
#08 JALM
(just a little more)
August 23, 2007
#78 mikebdot said . . .for the record, i like mike too... just don't want you to misinterpret my thoughts
August 23, 2007
#79 Pissed off said . . .PO'd: Your little scenario/description of me is flawed. It's not "I like whatever the Bears decides", it's that I agree with their assessment of the talent. If Grossman doesn't perform very well, I am more than willing to give Griese a shot to salvage the season, if we're say, 0-3 or 0-4 and it's due to Grossman. How is this on the fence? This is making informed decisions based on facts. You guys seriously sound like George W. Bush.
You're putting lines in the sand that don't need to be there. Rex will play, we'll all evaluate his play. It's that simple. Are you saying if he sucks for 5 straight games you wouldn't consider putting Griese in?
August 23, 2007
#80 mikebdot said . . .Phil your general point of view is sometimes a "no-no." Your not the mediator so please dont tell me what I can and cant do. I do however agree with your "a little bit more" point overall, its a very valid take on what we need to win....just a little more. BTW I hate the spurs and please don't talk about them on here. Its like going from eating a porterhouse (talking about Bears) to eating a piece of shit (talking about Spurs basketball). Too bad Donaghe (sp) rigged it so they could beat the Suns.
Mike I'm totally cool with your explanation. I think we're on the same page now. And yes if Rex blows I too will call for Griese. However the gauge of determining if he "blows" is whats hard to do. I seemingly have a higher tolerance for Rex's mistakes than most so we probably will disagree on when that time comes should he need to be replaced. I will have to see the the entirety of the games he "blows" in to determine wether he did suck or wether the rest of the team sucked (WR drops, how the INTs or fumbles occur) or a combination of both before I call for Griese. Get me?
August 23, 2007
#81 Reusneclili said . . .PO'd: Yes, I do. The definition of "blows" is only standard in the porn industry.
I think our line might cause some of our problems.
Also, for some fun with fumbles, check this out, I've got a few comments at the bottom of the thread:
http://www.webwaymonsters.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=28585&start=0
I don't think Kreutz is a problem snapper, nor do I think Grossman fumbles too much. I suppose I could look up stats for every team over the past couple of years and look for trends, but that would be hard. And screw that, I gotta leave soon.
August 23, 2007
rosie@triad29.com
rosieponder@verizon.net
Not only do they try to rip you off, they send your email out and you get a ton of junk mail.March 5, 2008
Here at DaBearsBlog, you are free to kill us or the Bears as you so wish. You are not free, however, to be an asshole. So if you spew racism or ill-meaning foul language (cursing about football is just fine) or anything of that ilk, your comments ain't gonna last long, jerk.