Greetings from theatreland. The following is the long-awaited debut post from our beloved PHIL FROM SATX. Hope you enjoy.
This post has been brewing since our initial QB thread. Even though it's somewhat out of order I have been encouraged to throw it out there - apparently the action has been a bit limp and lackluster out there in these dog days of pre-training camp.
I aim to prove to all unbiased fans why Rex Grossman is definitively better than Kyle Orton and why it's nothing less than a fait accompli that he will be installed as the starter come September.
Unfortunately I need to use the Devil's tool to accomplish this - you know what I am talking about - wait for it -
QB RATINGS! (feel free to now hit "back" on your browser and switch over to the latest drunk celebrity photos)
Seriously, folks, the answers are all there, in the QB ratings, bear with me here. A word about QB ratings - we can argue as to how valid they are, how arbitrary the supposed "benchmarks" are (MikeB HATES the random number 100 as a benchmark), how they are undeniably affected by other factors occurring during the game which cannot be discerned from the number itself - all of this is true.
What is also true is that the number means SOMETHING. I have always felt that the best proof that QB ratings correlate with good QB play is to look at the top rated QBs - you'll quickly see they are, more or less, the ones you yourself would put at the top of the heap just off the top of your head. I will make another bold claim here - YOU CANNOT FAKE HIGH QB RATINGS, at least not more than a couple of times. If you get a very high rating, you played a very good game. For this analysis, and with apologies to Mike, I'm using 100 as that benchmark.
Now we need to go to the scorecards - In 2006, Rex's first real year, he played in (and started) 19 games. He posted the benchmark of 100 or better in 8 games (I'm including a 98.6 game because that's close enough). He also posted two games in the 80's, also considered a very good performance.
In 2007, you already know he was terrible in the first 3 games, which led to his benching. Some of us think that RT had a lot to do with that, but whatever. He played in 3 1/2 games in his return. The 1/2 game was over 100, and two of the full games were in the 80's. The sole sub-80 game was a win over Denver. While his numbers didn't match the 8 best games in 2006, they were high and correlate with the reason why most of us felt that he showed real improvement and a reason to offer him a contract in 2008 - he looked better.
Now Kyle. Kyle had his chance at a full year in 2005. Granted he was a rookie, but he took lots of snaps that year. In 2005, Kyle had ONE game at the benchmark 100, his second game under center. He had 3 games in the 80's, all in the first half of the season. His ratings fell off the wall after that - 60's and lower in the second half of the season. But, you're saying, we still won games under him! Wait on that for a second.
Now fast forward to 2007. The three games at the end of the season that make everyone say "Kyle's a winner!" "Kyle's better than Rex!" He scored terribly in the first game with a 59, loss to Minny. The next game is the real reason for all the excitement over Kyle, the mudder game in Green Bay. He posted the second 100+ game in his career. But there are 100 games and there are 100 games. He got his 100 by completing all of 9 passes for 104 yards, 1 TD. Difficult conditions, sure, but c'mon people. When you drill down to Rex's 100+ games, they were high ratings the hard way - by throwing, and completing, lots of passes. The last game of the season Kyle posted a respectable 78, and a win.
But what was different about those games at the end of the season? You know it, I know it - the reemergence of the Chicago Bear defense is what was different.
Rex's 9 games at 100+ and 4 games in the 80's in two years compared with Kyle's 2 and 0 in roughly the same two years is the reason why Rex is better, and why he clearly has a higher upside. Kyle did show improvement in his last 3 games over 2005, so he apparently has some upside too. But you can't fake great QB games, and being a "game manager" like Kyle really means having consistent but consistently mediocre ratings - high enough to win lots of games with a great defense and special teams, not high enough to win games against tough opponents in the playoffs.
Did I do it? Did I prove it to you? Well I tried, anyway.
#2 Ken said . . .Well I tripped myself up there, a little - Kyle had 3 games in his career in the 80's, not zero.
So it's 9 + 4 vs. 2 + 3. And I'll add a little - we need to acknowledge that hitting 8 100+ games in a single year is exceedingly difficult to do. I am going to make a bold and bald statement right here and say Kyle Orton could NEVER do that. NEVER. He's just not that kind of a QB, doesn't have that kind of arm.
I'm also going to address the objections in advance. You're going to say I only looked at half the equation, being the good games. It's true, I did. But I already know Rex has the stuff to repetitively hit 100+ games - something you can't teach. We now need to see if he can eliminate the bad games, or at least the REALLY bad games.
I would rather bet on that then bet on whether Kyle can steadily raise his mediocre average game to get up into the 80's and 100's. I think that's a MUCH more difficult road, probably impossible.
June 3, 2008
#3 mikebdot said . . .You know what would really convince me of one being better than the other? One of them playing better in camp and in the preseason.
Seriously, at this point we've seen enough and watched enough that there's no point in trying to divine this out by re-analyzing what happened 2 or 3 years ago. Just go with the one that shows he's ready to do it now.
June 3, 2008
#4 mikebdot said . . .You can look at the data any way you want.
A QB rating in a game goes over 100 if:
Yards/att is large because of a big play or two, typically a product of poor defense (or good play calling) (like, say, the Giants game of '06)
Comp % is large because the QB is actually decent
TDs > 1
INTs
Anyhow, if you're going to point to good defense as an excuse for Orton winning football games, you have to do the same thing with '06. Our awesome defense and generating the most turnovers (or close to it) in the league certainly aids the number of TD passes. Not to mention the addition of a certain #23 to the roster.
I don't think looking at data from previous years doesn't anything useful as the entire receiving corps has changed since Orton started quite a few games, not to mention O-line. Sometimes things just gel for a QB with talent surrounding him. I'm anxious to see preseason action, which is sad in a way, but Orton certainly showed he has an arm last year. Plus, he hadn't started a game in almost two seasons. Throwing the football in Chicago is not that easy in December.
Also, Rex has played in 1 of 4 seasons.
And, just noticed, Rex had 0 full 100+ rating games last season. You count a half game when Griese was injured but discout one of Orton's three actual starts? That's kind of goofy. Last season it's pretty much a toss up looking at QB rating. The whole point of QB rating was to compare an entire season's worth of data to each other. That doesn't really show us anything for teams that used three QBs, and then to compare them to each other when the opponents and conditions on the field were different.
Kyle Orton's QB rating in '07 was 73.9 and Grossman's was 66.4. They played with slightly different personnel (Benson and Brown were hurt on O for Orton, and Grossman was missing Olsen). It's hard to draw any sort of conclusion looking at that isolated data.
As much as I hate to admit it, I still trust the coaching staff to make the right decision. I'll back whoever is chosen.
June 3, 2008
#5 mikebdot said . . .Should have said "INTs
June 3, 2008
#6 Phil from SATX said . . .oh, the "less than" sign hid everything. So, it should say "INTs less than 2 (as in 0 or 1, and only 1 if there are a large amount of attempts)
html is good times.
June 3, 2008
#7 craig said . . .Mike, I counted it for both equally - 9 + 4 vs. 2 + 3. I did discount Kyle's 100 game in 2007 because he completed 9 passes for 104 yards to get that 100. And in the 1/2 game Rex came back in on, he threw for 142 yards IN A HALF - and won the game. And Rex's 66 for the year looks bad, it's so low because of those first 3 games. A mathematical average of his 4 games back (which I know is a wrong way to do it technically) is 86. So which is the real Rex? The one that played bad at the beginning of the season for 3 games or the one that played like an 80's rating QB for the last 4?
I get that we'll find out in training camp. This exercise was simply to show there is some existing data which can support that Rex has more upside than Kyle and I think it shows he's a better QB as well. The comment about injury is valid, safe to say that Kyle has shown he's more durable than Rex. When Rex wins the job, he'll have to be able to show that he can make it without one more injury, or he's gone.
June 3, 2008
#8 Pissed Off said . . .I think Rex is going to be the guy. Just a feeling.
Wondering: do we have a nickname for Orton yet? I'm sold on KSK's appellation for Grossman: The Sex Cannon. But what do we have for Kyle? The 'Stache? Amish Country? That 70's Show? I don't remember hearing any...
June 3, 2008
#9 mikebdot said . . .I'm sold, but lets face it, I've been sold on Rex being the guy for a long time. I just want to get the preseason going already. Lets see whats these guys look like.
And regarding names for Kyle, I've heard Captain Neckbeard on here a few times.
June 3, 2008
#10 PolygonHell said . . .Phil: Most of Kyle's start were in his rookie season. Thrown into the fire, he was, with a limited playbook. I hated Orton in '05 and have stated as such. However, I think now that he knows the offense, he could be a solid option. Still, I care not. we're two months away from the first preseason game. I think I might take a break for awhile and pay more attention to IRL racing. I went to the 500 and will be going to Sparta, KY and Nashville, TN to see those races as well. Huzzah.
June 3, 2008
#11 Shady said . . .The problem I've always had with the QB rating, is the name, yes it's heavilly distorted by a single meaningless interception or Touchdown, but call it the "passing game rating" and it's a lot less obnoxious.
It at least starts to imply it's a team stat.As for Orton vs Grossman, it is what it is, I've seen most of their games and my preference is to have Grossman in there. IMO the offense just looks better, I don't know if it's a function of Turner's play calling being different with Orton under center, or it's just a difference in the confidence the players have in the two QB's or what.
There will be a number of upset fans no matter what the coaching staff decide.
June 3, 2008
#12 Al In WI said . . .They'll be upset because this is ANOTHER year where they are forced to watch Grossman battle Orton for the reins to an anemic offense. I'm so tired of the so called "competition" or "QB battle".
Bullshit. Bears fans have to call out this organization for bullshit. Neglecting to add legitimate competition to the QB position (arguably the most important in the game) is unacceptable.
Another point made during mid '07: It won't matter WHO is taking snaps if the line can't block, the RBs can't break tackles, the receivers can't catch and Turner can't call up the right plays.
But if you're a betting man and HAD to pick one, you'd have to pick Rex for three reasons:
1. Potential. From what we've seen, Rex's ceiling is higher than Kyle's.
2. Rex looks better in camp. He throws a prettier ball to his recievers, and the coaches won't be able to re-create the type of setting under which Kyle seems to outperform Rex: Decision making under pressure.
3. Rex was offered a 1 yr. deal in the offseason... He ain't spending that year on the bench folks, it's as simple as that.
June 3, 2008
#13 jdawg said . . .Well of course I like it. I think it's a bit complicated but it makes the point well enough. I would also point the major difference in offensive rankings between 2005 and 2006. With the exact same supporting cast Grossman lead the offense to major jumps in every offensive catagory. That isn't a coincidence.
I'd also argue that the defense was aided significantly in the first half of 2006 but the huge leads that Grossman and the passing game handed them. It wasn't as dominant a group as it had been in 2005 in large part because of the injuries to Brown and Harris.
But overall I agree with the bottom line; Grossman is much more capable of winning a game for you. Orton at his best has not gotten in the way.June 3, 2008
#14 Taylor said . . .well, my opinion is this:
If Grossman keeps fumbling snaps, throwing interceptions that would have Favre scratching his head, freaking out and taking sacks 20 yds. behind the LoS, bench him and cut him loose at the end of the season.
I was one of his biggest fans, hypnotized by his arm, moxie and toughness; but if he can't play smart consistently by this time in his career he never will.
Now, I don't think Orton's the answer either, but we've got to play the hand we've been dealt.
June 4, 2008
#15 shonbear said . . .I'm so sick of people saying the Bears should have gotten someone else. WHO? Shady that is directed at you. Yeah we could have drafted a QB, but that doesn't help you win now. Besides that, this draft was terrible for QB's. Would you have like the Bears to sign Culpepper? Come on, Rex was probably the best free agent QB available.
June 4, 2008
#16 ben in norcal said . . .um yea, how about this:
Either QB that sucks in the first two games will be on the bench by the 3rd game.
The Defense/ST's will play so well this year that it will camouflage either QB issues.
Turner will pick Grossman because he doesn't want a consistent well oiled productive offense, he wants the big play to shade his lame ass play calling and Grossman is better at the big play than Orton, not that the hairy beast doesn't have some big plays in him, but Grossman has more.
Lastly, I've said it before, but I really think that the rest of the offense should have at least some kind of a confidence vote in which guy they want to be the starter. Not an all inclusive vote, but at least they should have some input.
Hey I got an idea, it could be a new reality show like survivor mor something, all the offense puts their vote in the bucket and the defense get's the final vote if it's a tie.
Jerry comes in and tellsthe loser to grab his helmet and head for the bench.
The players all play the party line when the media asks which QB they want, but behind the scenes they maust have a true opinion for the coaches COME on!!
Let's get into the preseason puhlease...
June 4, 2008
#17 ben in norcal said . . .Hello, everyone. I'm a long-time reader/first time poster. Just like the rest of you I will live and breath chicago bears football until the day that i am dead. I read this blog at night time on my break at work and feel like I already know all of you like my own kin. In watching all the action over the last few seasons I would like to put in my two cents about our current qb situation. It troubles me when people say we're the worst of the north because it simply isn't true. Even to say this isn't a "battle" or "competition" as Shady stated is also false. Both of these guys have produced winning/playoff-bound seasons under center and the same cannot be said about gb or minny's starting qb's (Rodgers and T-jack, respectively). And don't say it was just D and ST because Rex and Kyle have both made plays that haved changed outcomes and helped win games (or lose them at times). I'm a Rex guy simply because when he takes the snap and drops back and fakes the handoff, I know there's a good chance of exciting shit about to happen.
June 4, 2008
#18 Shady said . . .However, he also scares the living shit out of me when he stands back there like a statue while the DE is is coming from his blindside. This is the one area I think Kyle looked more solid than Rex last year, his ability to step up into the pocket and actually use it. Also his ability to side-step, something Rex never does cause he's usually too busy staring down his primary target (god bless him). But we all know who looks better in camp every year and I feel like Rex will come around this year, and if he doesn't, and Kyle goes to work, then I will stand by our guy either way. Also I think Kyle's nickname should be 'KO' (you heard it here first). Hopefully we get some support from our OL and RB for whomever is taking the snaps this year. And for all those people who like to say Rex has the strongest arm on the team, I recall hearing from da site 2 years ago that Kyle can actually throw the ball the farthest (74 yds). But we can all agree sexy can thread a needle at 60 yds, Ive seen him do it. May the best man win. Feels good to finally post on this site, I had to let it all out as I have read this blog every day for the past year and never voiced my thoughts. Nice to meet you all, no more rants from me(maybe not, anyways). In your prayers, remember da bears. Amen.
June 4, 2008
#19 Pissed Off said . . .Hey Ben, nice to hear from you...
But the competition is a JOKE.
Both QB's are mediocre so it's more like "the battle of the backups". If they were on any other team, maybe other than Kansas City or Balimore, they would be relegated to 2nd or 3rd string duties.
The irony or the 'battle'? Splitting snaps won't make either of them better. The Bears are better off naming the starter earlier than later so that he can work on timing routes with his new receivers.
You're right Taylor, what could the Bears have done this off season to address the QB position? But the fact is they've ignored the damn QB position for so long that now we're stuck in this mess for another few years.... at least. Unless of course Grossman can prove he was worth a 1st rd. pick.
June 4, 2008
#20 Phil from SATX said . . .Ben, keep it coming man. Its an open forum here and without all the controversey and bitching and opinions this site wouldnt be fun so keep your opinons coming. I agree that there was no QB we could have gotten this year in a weak draft and there was nothing in free agency either. I would have liked to see us take a chance on a guy like Brennan late in the draft but he'd probably shit the bed like most late rounders. That said, the brain trust identified a couple of QBs that they thought have potential and were able to get them without wasting a draft pick. I dont know which is the answer but either way we gotta roll with what we got now. And that is Rex.
June 4, 2008
#21 Rancid said . . .Hey, good to have you Ben! Good takes. You are right about Kyle's movement in the pocket - that seems to come much more naturally to him then it does to Rex. Maybe he had better training at that over at Purdue where they didn't have as good a line, we know Rex probably didn't have to move that much at Florida.
His "professional" looking moves in the pocket coupled with his abilities to make something happen when things break down, plus his ability to limit his mistakes - all of that is good shit and the reason why he's at least a credible starter and more particularly an awesome choice for backup.
His achilles heel, his krytonite, will always be his lack of accuracy. It's just not there and it won't get there. I don't think there is a franchise QB out there you can name who doesn't have accuracy as a hallmark of his game - maybe the overall arm strength varies, but accuracy is the underlying commonality.
I think that's part of what dooms the so-called "running QB's" from time immemorial. They get to camouflage their lack of accuracy by making plays with their feet. Success with their feet, which makes accuracy issues less problematic, keeps them in the league and keeps teams betting on them. But they never reach the pinnacle, and the reason? Not enough accuracy.
Now it needs to be said that Kyle is NOT a running QB - maybe more than Rex, but just a little.
If Rex continues to grow in his pocket awareness, and specifically works on stepping up instead of running backwards - and using his feet to gain a few forward yards on a busted play as opposed to a 20 yard sack loss - his accuracy will bring us wins. And wins. And wins.
June 4, 2008
#22 mikebdot said . . .I am fairly confident that Rex will start. I am not ready to say that Rex is defenitely better than KO. I am ready to say that Rex can be better than KO and ready to say that Rex should be better than KO. He has shown that. However, I will not look at his last three games last year and ignore his first three.
I remember waiting all year (like we are now) in sheer agony waiting for that Chargers game. It's probably one of the most disappointing regular season games I've ever watched. I am pulling for Rex to finally be consisitently good. I want him to be the guy, our guy. He has shown that he has the skills and balls to do it, but he has never done it consistently. So that's what I hope we see this year as he wins the job and then has a solid season.
KO is a known quantity. He should be a quality career backup who will switch teams every few years and maybe get a shot to start every once in a while if his agent is smart and lands him in a town with a shaky or injury prone starter. Frankly, I like the guy. I wish he was a bit more accurate, so I could rationally desire him over Rex but at this point I can't. However, if we could know our defense would be healthy all year I understand the thinking of those who would rather have KO come out and throw an 80 rating game every week and count on the D for that to be enough. It's not my position, but I understand the thought process.
I have hope in Rex, if not confidence.
As far as nicknames for Orton, Captain Neckbeard was fantastic. Problem is that he shaved it off last year and went with the child molester moustache instead. There's a lesson to be learned here about creating nicknames based on type and location of facial hair. It's a risky business. If your initials are KO, I'm not sure you need a nickname.
June 4, 2008
#23 Phil from SATX said . . .Shady: Have you seen the QBs at Kansas City and Baltimore play football? Yuck. I'd rather have Orton or Grossman any day of the week. And that actually says something.
Who in the league would you rather have had us acquire?
What makes me especially sad, though, is that I'm looking forward to seeing Caleb Hanie on the field during preseason.
June 4, 2008
#24 Pissed Off said . . .Kyle certainly disappointed ALL when he shaved. Otherwise I would favor the nickname
'Quatch
Because he's always reminded me of that famous shadowy Bigfoot photo.
Rancid, good take, but you really meant the 60's-70's for Kyle. We would take consistent 80's from anyone.
I was looking at sack numbers - did you know Kyle had 30 sacks in 14 1/2 games in 2005? Rex only had 21 in 16 regular season in 2006.
HOWEVER , Kyle took only 2 in 3 games in 2007, while Rex took (gasp) 25 in 7 games in 2007! And only 9 of those were in the first 3 horrible games! That included a 5 sack game against Seattle (loss) and a 6 sack game against Giants (loss). Hmmm... maybe sacks are more important than I'm giving credit for... and he had QB ratings in the 80's in both of those games... Maybe I'm all full of shite after all.
June 4, 2008
#25 Rancid said . . .FROM PHIL:
"I think that's part of what dooms the so-called "running QB's" from time immemorial. They get to camouflage their lack of accuracy by making plays with their feet. Success with their feet, which makes accuracy issues less problematic, keeps them in the league and keeps teams betting on them. But they never reach the pinnacle, and the reason? Not enough accuracy. "My answer, Mike Vick. That guy is the most inaccurate passer I think I've ever seen. If he couldn't scramble like he could he wouldnt be on an NFL roster, as a QB anyway. Honorable mention: Vince Young.
KO nicknames, how about "Pedo" with a long "o" sound....as in Pedofile. That stache takes it man or maybe "Chester?"
June 4, 2008
#26 mikebdot said . . .Phil - I meant 80, not 80's. KO averaged a 73.9 last year. With an improved line and hopefully a bit better running game, plus the improvement of practicing with the starters all year, I think he could pull his average up 6 points. Again, I am not endorsing this line of thinking as my own (unless KO could improve the accuracy a bit), just saying that I understand the concept.
In a side note, I still dislike the QB rating and believe that it is a stat that exists just so jackass commentators can make broad statements about QBs and games they've never actually watched. I'm not saying it isn't valid to a degree, I just hate the implementation. I'd rather just watch the game.
For example, Rex got hung out to dry more with drops by receivers. He makes a good throw, and the receiver drops it. This counts the same as when KO overthrows a wide open target by 5 feet. Not really fair to Rex. Then later, KO keeps his head in pressure and throws a ball away, while Rex runs backward for a 10 yard loss on the sack, and this is better for his QB rating than what KO did. It's not that the rating doesn't given a decent overall perspective, it's just that if we all watched all the games last season, we should have a better picture than anyone using the ratings. But we've had this conversation way too many times already.
June 4, 2008
#27 JWilson said . . .Randall Cunningham was a pretty decent scrambling passer. As was Steve Young. You guys remember that one guy...what was his name? Oh, Jim McMahon. Granted, the last two might not be what you guys would consider a scrambling QB, but Randall Cunningham certainly was. His career QB rating is over 80.
Phil: I know all about that Giants game and Grossman's inability to make plays when it mattered, like on, say, a third down.
Our ability to convert on third down is quite possibly the bane of our existence. That and stupid penalties. We were one of the worst in the league on third down last season as well.
29th in '07
22nd in '06
31st in '05
32nd in '04
24th in '03
28th in '02That is a product of poor execution coupled with bad play calling.
The lack of a "go-to" type player certainly doesn't help. Hopefully one of our young receivers helps us out in that regard.
I keep hearing things about how Rex makes plays, but that is simply not true. He makes throws per the play call. There were a handful of times where he scrambled to make a decent throw, a few of which I remember clearly as Moose and Berrian dropped the balls!
Hopefully new receivers coupled with a new O-line will help, especially replacing Miller with anything other than a revolving door that starts spinning too early (false start) and gets stuck in the middle of the revolution (holding).
June 4, 2008
#28 Smitty said . . .QB ratings. This guy does this well.That guy does that well. This guy is short. That guy is hairy. This guy preforms well in the off season, that guy don't. All the numbers and ratings and attributes don't mean crap. All it boils down to; is who can throw the most touchdowns. And who can generate more wins!
O, and Travis Henry needs not to show up in Chicago.
June 4, 2008
#29 Sick o'Rex said . . .Grossman is a practice all-star. He looks great during scrimmage and when there is no pressure. He fumbles way to much in games and everyone seems to forget his injury history.
Orton will protect the ball much better but may not be as capable of the big play. In either case, it will be another year of bad QB play.
June 4, 2008
#30 mikebdot said . . .To (mis)quote somebody-or-other here on Da Site...
REX GARGLES DONKEY BALLS !
We all know that Rexy can play.. when there's no heat on him. He can fling it far... when nobody rushes him. He can't handle the ball, has no awareness or elusiveness.
I KNOW ! Let's make it a rule that nobody can rush Rex. Sound good?
June 4, 2008
#31 Rancid said . . .don't feed the trolls...
June 4, 2008
#32 jdawg said . . .Totally off topic but it beats talking about donkey genitalia. A guy in my office just asked me if the Bears will have to give Hester a new # since he is not a CB anymore and a WR can't wear #23. Interesting query. Is there a grandfather rule for players who change positions? Does it depend on how he's listed on the roster? Currently he is listed as PR/KR, not WR. Maybe that keeps him from having to change.
June 4, 2008
#33 Phil from SATX said . . .The odd thing about Rex's in-pocket brain farts is I've seen him take hits (first O play against SD last season) that would have knocked 75% of the starting QBs out of the game. He obviously can take the punishment (as long as that punishment isn't in the form of a 6'1", 320 lb. DT rolling up his ankle) he just seems to have moments where he panics and either eats the ball, fumbles or forces a shitty throw.
June 4, 2008
#34 Pissed Off said . . .He had those moments - but not really much in the last 4 games. It is remarkable that he appears to be this combination of extremely durable (agree with you about the 75% comment and the hits he has absorbed) but injury prone as well. Of course, that is part of the downside too - he hasn't had the stuff to avoid those hits - that's where his game needs work - and where our line needs work.
I am a little discouraged to see the sack data I pulled out - I had the memory that he played well in all of the "comeback" games but 11 sacks in two losses is a real problem - but that was also the time that it was revealed that Ruben Brown had his injury and the hordes were totally breaching the gates...
Let's all hope that Rex continues his improvement, and let's hope even more so that Harry Hiestand and crew provides us with a credible line. It's been said before here, but the season really seems to hinge most directly on Chris Williams, John Tait, Olin Kreutz, and whoever plays guard for the Bears.
June 4, 2008
#35 animal said . . .I loved watching Rex the last games he played in post benching before he got hurt. He probably didnt put up his best numbers but I think he looked even better than that early 2006 Rex. What was greatly refreshing to see what him step up in the pocket when it collapsed. Though most good QBs do that we were used to seeing him run backwards till he got sacked or threw it away or threw it up for an INT or imcompletion. It was like a whole new QB. He was fighting for his job and trying to make plays. Now that he knows he's on a short leash I expect nothing but greatness (even though that will be tough to guage with the mediocre talent around him unless there is some crazy change) Cmon Rex, get it done in your second or third last chance, whatver this is.
June 4, 2008
#36 Shady said . . .Good post Phil. I think I ranted on this on our last thread. Rex is clearly the better QB. You make a nice case, and good use of numbers. Rex has both a bigger and more accurate arm. He takes more risks, leading to more turnovers but also more huge plays. You won't see kyle throwing the long TD strikes like Rex was throwing to BB in early 06.
June 4, 2008
#37 Make or Break said . . .PO'd I disagree.
Yes post-benching Rex played better last year, but I think you've got the reasoning backwards.
Rex's "leash" was shorter to begin the season than it was after he replaced Griese. I mean, what was it 3 games before he was pulled for Grease ball?
I feel like when he came back in the Oakland game, he had nothing to lose - whatever the Bears could have done to Rex they had already done. At that point in the season people were happy to see him back and didn't have to look over his shoulder as much, so in my opinion he wasn't "fighting for his job" after coming back.
He looked more relaxed, and really, why wouldn't he be? it's not like they were going to bench Rex AGAIN...Right?
In conclusion, Rex plays better when he's NOT under pressure. Whether that pressure is literal (like from Michael Strahan) or figurative (like from Kyle Orton or playing in the Super Bowl) doesn't really matter. Rex seems to play best when... well, when he just doesn't give a fuck anymore about what would happen if he screws up.
June 4, 2008
#38 shonbear said . . .This is why I think Rex breaks out this year and becomes a Pro Bowl QB:
1. It's a contract year. Millions of dollars are on the line.
2. He has the right attitude -- he's taking reps with the rookie FA qbs.
3. He's played at a pro bowl level before. We know he CAN do it.
4. It takes time for a qb to develop. Now is Rex's time.
5. Devin Hester. No one can stop Hester streaking down the sideline. Few qbs in the league can get the ball to Hester like Rex can.
Two things that worry me:
1. We haven't fixed the O-line yet. We just haven't. Larry Allen anyone?
2. Ron TurnerJune 4, 2008
#39 mikebdot said . . .Shady,
I couldn't agree more with why Rex looked better when he came back because of no pressure anymore (both kinds). At that time he probably figured he wasn't going to be in Chitown anymore after the season, another reason he signed for the extra year, no pressure of learning a new offense again and he knew he would probably still be the starter even if the Bears had picked up a QB in the draft.
That said, what if he takes us to another Superbowl, even if it's not because of him, but due to good defense and special teams. The Bears will be required to pay him a lot of money to keep him. I think JA and the organization secretly want him to play well enough to barely win and then if they need Orton due to an injury that he plays well enough to win. Then they can hope on these two undrafted back ups for enough talent to keep and pay minimum. The truth is the Bears want to win without having to pay anybody too much money which is the name of the game, so yea it's a business and that's why they are depending on building the team primarily through the draft. They will take care of the occasional veteran that is already on the team, but few of our vets are getting huge type money. When they know they really need to keep a player (like TH), the process seems to go on and on. When they signed BU for the 50 some mil for nine years, it may have seemed like a lot at the time, but now they look genius for saving cash (at least for now).
All that said to say, I really don't care if the Bears get in a situation where they'd have to pay Grossman big money or release him, I'd take that situation, I just want to get back the SB or at least make a strong run in the playoffs.
The funny thing is how awesome it would be if he has a probowl year and everybody, media, our bloggers, our enemies saying that Grossman is not and never will be a franchise QB then changing their tune. this is the scenario I really want to see. Nobody ever expected him to have that month in September 06. Now nobody expects that he can ever repeat it.
This season the pressure is really on him, if he gets through it and shuts the world up with great play he is going to be paid by somebody. If not he'll be a back up in Miami, New Orleans, Oakland, Arizona or San Diego (hopefully not Minnesota). (seems like we send a lot of our old QB's to SD).
Movin on. Go Redwings!!! Now let's get those NBA finals finished and be another step closer to the preseason...
June 5, 2008
#40 PANKSTER said . . .Speaking of arbitrary decisions on QB rating stats, why not use 106? Rex ONLY had three games above 106 in '06.
Peyton Manning had 5. Tony Romo had 4 in 11 games. Ben Roethlisberger had 4. Phillip Rivers had 6. Carson Palmer had 4.
I could give two shits about individual game QB ratings as you can find data to support any conclusion you want. I think a career rating above 80 or so would be nice. But that's just my opinion.
June 5, 2008
#41 DTB said . . .ORTONS NICK NAME IS SPACOLLI EVERY TIME THE CAMERA PANNED OVER HE LOOKED STONED!!!!
June 6, 2008
#42 Phil from SATX said . . .Reality is that no matter who wins this supposed open competition, the second stringer is going to be the most popular QB in Chicago. This epidemic is something that we all have been conditioned to buy into. Its sad that all these years we have been waiting for a QB to take the reigns and run with it, but it is us that prevents that from happening. Upon every open reciever that is missed, every sack taken and every inteception thrown we demand that someone else gets an opportunity. It is that, in fact that does not allow our starting quarterback to fight through difficult times and grow as a football player. So I have a suggestion, dont buy into the local media, riding the coat tails of the national media and throwing our Qb under the bus at every opportune moment. Lets just roll with whomever gets the nod and realize that the Bears have to win with what we have.
June 6, 2008
#43 Shady said . . .Not very happy to hear that the early QB competition has looked like Ugly vs. Uglier. I don't know where that came from, I read it in Brad Biggs' blog, didn't really even know these guys were playing at all. Anyone know anything about this?
I can't believe training camp doesn't start until late July. Yikes.
June 6, 2008
#44 Taylor said . . .Phil, let's hope it's the defense that's making the QBs look terrible...
I've heard they've had more picks than a finger at a nose convention. ( I know, terrible joke).
June 6, 2008
#45 animal said . . .Great point DTB. The grass is always greener on the other side.
Phil- I think it's pretty typical for the defense to catch on quicker than the offense. Especially with so many new receivers. I remember last year the media made a big deal about how the offense was seemingly so far ahead of the defense when training camp started, and we all know how accurate that observation turned out to be.June 6, 2008
#46 Doh! said . . .This is a short but very interesting analysis on corner play last year. It looks at the top corner tandems in the league, and uses Tillman and McBride as the Bears in the analysis.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=joyner_kc&id=3425488
June 7, 2008
#47 Shady said . . .The SunTimes is reporting Cedric Benson was arrested last night in Austin on drunken driving charges. You are rich. Pay someone to drive you around in a limo to do whatever stupid shit you want. Do you really not have any friends?
June 7, 2008
#48 Staley said . . .http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/txcn/austin/stories/060708kvuebenson-mm.b6fb9f1.html
What.An.
Idiot.
June 7, 2008
#49 Happy Dog said . . .You know why Grossman's ratings are misleading? Fumbled. Snaps. These do not count against his rating but are deadly to the team. Also, Orton wasn't allowed to pass his rookie year. It isn't a fair comparison. Plus, Grossman's rookie year should be considered 0 since he held a clipboard the whole time. At minimum, Orton doesn't lose the game for us. I can't say the same about Grossman and his inability to complete snaps.
June 13, 2008
This is sick! Do you want to know why Grossly Rex is so despised by most of us life-long Bears fans? The answer has to do with Lovie Smith.
Smith thinks that we are so stupid to believe that he can give excuses for Grossly Rex over and over and we are just suppose to take it... over and over. Without questioning anything. Grossly Rex was shoved down our throats in 2005.
If Smith actually believed the BS he fed us about why Grossly should lead the team into the postseason in 2006, then he would have had Orton doing the same thing for us in 2005. But he pulled Orton, who was the starting QB for the team that earned a first round bye in the playoffs bye the way, for Grossly in the first game of the playoffs... which we were upset in by Carolina Panthers.
Why is there so much animosity towards Grossly? Because he has an attitude of entitlement. He doesn't prepare for every game (and admitted to that), but yet he gets to start. Thank Lovie Smith for creating the step-child that everybody wants to beat-up because he earns nothing and gets everything.
Peace out!
June 17, 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.