David Haugh posits in today's Tribune that the Chicago Bears should look to 37 year-old Kurt Warner to solve their franchise-long quarterbacking woes. Now I'm trying to go a bit easier on Haugh these days but when he writes things like this it's impossible. I'm not going to waste an entire column explaining how bad Kurt Warner was in the only non-dome, non-Arizona place he ever tried to play (New Jersey). Nor will I provide a play-by-play of Warner's brilliant performance in New England a few weeks back; wherein snow seemed to actually frighten him.
Instead I'll respond directly to the most inane piece of Haugh's column.
Two league developments over the weekend provided evidence for Angelo to support the contention that better quarterback play, more than anything else, can help the Bears return to the playoffs next season. Exhibit A came from the report that the Patriots intend to use a $14 million franchise tag on quarterback Matt Cassel, who likely will back up Tom Brady--committing $29 million (24 percent) of the salary cap to the position. Exhibit B came when Joe Flacco of the Ravens and Chad Pennington of the Dolphins--first-year starters for their teams--faced off.Now read that piece again. Exhibit A is meant to "support the contention that better quarterback play...can help the Bears return to the playoffs." The New England Patriots DID NOT MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. They're not franchising Matt Cassel to backup Tom Brady. They're franchising Matt Cassel because of either a league-wide belief that Tom Brady may not be ready for the start of the 2009 season or to "ensure [they] will receive significant compensation by trading [him]". They're franchising Matt Cassel not because they believe he's a great quarterback but because they believe in having a healthy starting quarterback on opening day.
Exhibit B is that two first year starters faced off. This is fact. One of these first year starters (Mr. Flacco) went 9-for-23 for 135 yards and looked dreadful. The other (Mr. Pennington) threw four interceptions and looked like he didn't belong in the sport. So yes, David, before the game your point made sense. But did you watch the game? And if you so, how can you believe the quarterbacks were the reason these teams made the postseason?
I have no problem with the papers calling for competition for Kyle Orton. I'm a believer in the notion that competition brings the best out of athletes. But going after Kurt Warner - especially for the reasons listed above - would be a disaster.
#2 shonbear said . . .Why can't these papers find someone intelligent to cover our beloved bears?
January 6, 2009
#3 Anonymous said . . ."Who does #13 throw to!?!", "who does #13 throw to!?!"
http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/headroom/985/wavs/austin1/turdboss.wav
I'd take Kurt Warner if he brought Boldin and Fitzgerald with him.
Kurt was talking about retiring after that huge head smash that Boldin took in week 4 and the Bears missed their opportunity to take him when they had the chance in previous years, now what's the point.
It would have been way more interesting for Haugh to discuss where Rex might end up and whether it's possible that he would ever improve in the things that hd didn't seem to while in Chicago.
It would be interesting to see Rex go to some team that has a coach that actually DEVELOPS a quarterback, maybe he would learn to fix some of his tendencies.
10 to 1 he ends up in Tampa Bay, they keep like 6-10 of them on the roster right? Probably both Rex and Kurt will go there.
January 6, 2009
#4 Anonymous said . . .gross for the other cards quarterback
January 6, 2009
#5 Anonymous said . . .I cant spell his name Linert? He hasn't taken a snap in like 2 seasons and he is ok. They (the Cards) get a backup and we the Bears get someone other than Rexy to give Orton healthy competition for the #1 job. Hey, while we're at it lets throw in 4 to 5 draft picks and acquire Boldin or Fitzgerald in the deal as well.
January 6, 2009
#6 Z said . . .Lastly someone on this blog mentioned who's-yo-mama as a pick up for the bears this off season. I like the thought but I believe 8 5 is better and more of a logical pickup. They're tired of his ass in cincy and he has to have a better year than he had this year. doesn't he? Someone please respond I like to know what people think of this thought.
January 6, 2009
#7 Z said . . .Couple thoughts.
1. Jeff should be paid to write in his spare time for either of our illustrious newspapers covering Da Bears.
2. I am over the idea of getting Warner, probably would pass on Garcia now too. A veteran backup like a Garrard that won't cause problems if he is the backup, otherwise go young and develop (sorry that was a joke, we all know Da Bears couldn't develop a QB if the fate of the Universe depended on it)
3. Any #1 WR will do just fine. I'll take Who's your momma or a trade for Boldin/Fitzy over Chad Johnson. He is awesome, I just don't think we have the veteran leadership to keep him in place when he starts freaking out and spazzing over not getting his every game.
4. I don't mind Marinelli as Def line/asst head coach but that is not going to be nearly enough. Babich is lost out there and maybe RT would do better with more talent but he isn't even using the talent we have. If we get a #1 WR he'll probably increase the use of the FB 3rd and 1 play a bunch and that is it. Can them both. Or don't Lovie and its all on you this year. The whole thing. No more BS excuses.
6. Bear Down!!!
January 6, 2009
#8 shonbear said . . .And I used to be the only one up this late along with Jeff and sometimes Animal. Are you Da Bears Denizens up for work or still up working it?
January 6, 2009
#9 Sdwat51 said . . .Chad Johnson is a deep threat guy and also great at yards after the catch, but either it's the way Ron draws up the plays coupled with our receivers not getting any separation, trippled with Kyle's inability to hit a reciever in stride or make the accurate long pass that probably won't work in Chitown. Whether or not we get a "real" number one, I just want all our receivers to strop dropping passes, the first and 10 and especially on critical 3rd down drive killers. Even if our motley crew corps would have decreased those drops, we would have won at a minimum 2 to 3 more games. We still would have probably looked like Minnesota did in their playoff game as Phly would have shown us they should not have lost the first game they lost to us, negative thinking I know.
The NFC North is about as good as the Big Ten right now. Is there a corolation to locale?
January 6, 2009
#10 Rancid said . . .It's all so maddeningly predictable, really.
The coaching staff will remain essentially the equivalent of an old nondescript Buick, QB's being looked at are all well past their better days, our D will walk into training camp intact and as tepid as the last half of the season, and Jerry Angelo will use the draft to bring in new blood for the practice squad.
Ok, maybe I'm being harsh, but it all really sounds like the same old news to me, just the names are different.
January 6, 2009
#11 bfos7215 said . . .I will remain opposed to solving any WR issues through the draft. We need to solve this through FA simply because we apparently do not like to involve rookie WRs. Right now our main need is a possession receiver with solid hands who is a good route runner, can catch over the middle, block well, and beat the single coverage that will result from being on the field with Hester. Go read Earl Bennett's scouting reports. I spent the last 20 minutes or so doing just that and I just described what Bennett was advertised as. He had ZERO catches this year. Most draft sites said that if he had top end speed he would have been a top 10 pick. We don't really need top end speed across from Hester, he's got that covered. Either we just didn't give him any time on the field, or he ended up sucking in practice, but I don't see how we can know that without giving him any time. He compares to Berrian in that they were both 3rd round picks. Berrian caught 15 and 13 passes in his first two seasons before exploding for 51 and then 71 in his last two seasons. To be fair though, the year he had 13 was Orton's rookie QB year when we never threw the ball. Unless Bennett didn't play because he totally sucked in practice, then there is no reason to draft a WR to solve our weakness there because we won't play him enough for it to matter. Either buy one, or give Bennett a chance.
January 6, 2009
#12 Duff Diggler said . . .Come on. This retort is just as idiotic. Saying these QB's weren't valuable to their team because they had poor playoff games??? Seriously? And even worse, making some dumb-ass point about a team that won 11 GAMES not making the playoffs so you don't have to concede how valuable Cassel was to them this year. That argument is full of shit, and you know it.
January 6, 2009
#13 jdawg said . . .Assuming you care or didn't see my late post last night..... o, and animal, i know they don't trade up, it's just wishful thinking, and thus what i would do.....
1. trade up to get Michael Crabtree
2. sign Albert Haynesworth (ufa as far as i know)
3. have Kurt Warner teach Babich how to bag groceries
4. move p-nut to S (a year overdue)
5. at least inquire about Cassell.... (some of you think rex is a good option in minny. i'd rather face him in minny than Cassell. rex will be a lion)
6. switch Urch and Briggs' possitions
7. lock up Izzy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8. hire someone (Pep Hamilton'esk (except with success) to solely help Hester.
9. with remaining draft picks, take a S, DE, QB, and G (in no specific order)
10. Mike Brown to DB coach (with intention to move up the coaching ladder ***important***)
January 6, 2009
#14 Phil from SATX said . . .I don't think Brown would want to coach next year. If I were the Bears I'd sign him to a one or two year incentive-laden deal with the understanding that he will ultimately be a coach.
This guy loves the game too much to quit just yet.
January 6, 2009
#15 The Ghost of Halas said . . .Hugely maddening that Earl Bennett had only one pass thrown his way this year, and that in the last game. I don't care how bad a guy looks in practice, when your Wide Receivers Not Named Hester are doing NOTHING for you, what possible reason under the sun is there for not getting Bennett some looks, some plays called for him? With this group of receivers this year, having a couple of catches in a row labels you a super hot receiver. He could have become the super hot receiver.
Second year in a row this has happened. I blame RT first, Lovie second. Now here we are, post-season, and we have no fricking idea what we have in Bennett. I have to presume the "brain trust" (going to have to start putting quotes around that from now on) believes he's a bust - otherwise what explains him not getting on the field?
And David Haugh, might you care to do some actual reporting and find out the answer to this burning question? Or are you going to do what you usually do, guess the answer and then present it as fact? (Same slam goes to all the Chicago Bears beat reporters - at least last year they asked about the non-use of Bradley a few times)
Also, what gives with Angelo's comment that "coordinators are up to Lovie?" Who says? Was that just a lie (I hope)? Problem is, Angelo, unlike Lovie, doesn't lie much. Does Lovie have something in his contract that gives him sole say over coordinators? (maybe he does?) I know they can't threaten to fire him because he'll say go ahead, I'll take the money instead of working.
I think Haugh really missed the point on mentioning Cassel and Pennington - a much better conclusion to draw from those two guys' success this year is "a team needs a good GM, good system and good coach" - the New England system is obviously unparalleled, and Belichik should have easily been Coach of the Year this year, and Parcells was the difference-maker in Miami, not Pennington.
I'd certainly take Parcells to remake our franchise, wouldn't you? It ain't about the QB right now, Haugh's just following Angelo's lead.
January 6, 2009
#16 Murph said . . .Don't look now, Jeff, but Carol Slezak of the Sun Times wrote an article about how Michael Vick would make a good addition to the Chicago sideline. I swear to fucking god....
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/slezak/1363326,CST-SPT-carol06.article
January 6, 2009
#17 Albert in Tucson said . . .bfos.............tell everyone whats really on your mind!!! Can anyone tell me why the hell Marty Booker was on this team last year? Let alone starting any game. Warner is too old, would take 2 years to acclimate to a new system. Ocho Cinco not sure if his problems are physical or mentalright now. TJ Housh.......every season has down time, his durability is always in question. We need a BIG FAST wr. lotta goodlittle guys.....we need that one large physical receiver.
January 6, 2009
#18 Right on Albert said . . .Kurt Warner? Sheesh! Are there plans to put a dome on Soldier Field that I haven't heard about?
2008 QBs:
Matt Ryan 16TD 11 INT 61% complete
Joe Flacco 14 TD 12 INT 60% complete
Kyle Orton 18 TD 12 INT 59% completeAll 3 had completion percentages rate around 60%. Yes, Orton's yards per attempt is comparatively low, but look who he's trying to hook up with on the outside. Anyone know where the Bears ranked in drops this year?
And yes, I saw Kyle make too many underthrows to Hester. Still,
Ryan had Michael Turner (4.5 ypc) and Jerrious Norwood (5.1 ypc) rushing for 130 yards a game.
Flacco had the suffocating Raven defense and the 1-2 punch of McClain and McGahee contributing 100+ yards per game.
Orton had Matt Forte, who, good as he was, didn't average 4 yards per carry and was under 80 yards a game.
My point is,
Ryan and Flacco are routinely hailed as phenoms but Kyle Orton is basically regarded as chopped liver.
I am not here to promote Orton as the next Unitas, but some so-called "experts" out there need a reality check. I was stunned when I looked at the numbers.
And , lord knows, in the pantheon of Bears' QBs, Orton just registered an OUTSTANDING season! You cannot find as many as 10 Bear QBs who threw for more than 18 TDs in a season. You can't judge Orton until you the Bears shore up both lines, the wideouts and get better spear-carrier for Forte. The Bears aren't watching the playoffs because of Kyle Orton. They're watching because the defense underperformed for most of the season. The Chargers are IN the playoffs because when they saw their defense underperforming they FIRED THEIR DQ!
January 6, 2009
#19 BearDown1982 said . . .WR, S, O-line, DE, CB, FB please
January 6, 2009
#20 jeff said . . .Wow. Can you imagine Warner throwing to this group of Bears receivers? He would be terrible. The man works well if the system and receivers fit him...a la the STL years with all those weapons and now the Cards with two of the games best two receiving threats to throw to.
He has had some success in the NFL and you can't take that away from him...but if he QB'd the Bears, he would throw A LOT of interceptions and his old bones would HATE playing in Chicago come November and December.
Dumb, David.
January 6, 2009
#21 Urlacher FTW said . . .wow. vick. can't say it's not intriguing.
January 6, 2009
#22 Gin said . . .The Patriots record doesn't matter, the position matters. They finished out of the playoffs.. end of paragraph. So jeff makes a very valid point in saying the Pats who invested so much in the position missed the playoffs, doesn't matter by what margin they missed, it's like saying the Bears are close... it's laughable.
Miami is a horrible example of trying to find a team that built around a QB. Quite the opposite actually, they made a whole playbook to take pressure off the QB and confuse Defenses so they could run the ball on most downs. Pennington was able to capitalize on many Ds having issues with all the gadgetry and actually played decent some but toward the end of the year, he was pretty awful to.
Orton put up better numbers than Flacco, Joe just has a better D. Jeff is right on here and Haugh is a hack.
Warner would be bad for us, I really think just about anyone would. I truly believe, and this'll sound a lil Yogi'ish but gimme a sec, that one of the Bear's biggest reasons they have went through so many quarterbacks is that they have went through so many quarterbacks. I mean if you can't stick with someone through some sticking points and rough spots and see if you can get a franchise QB out of the deal, I don't think you'll find one. Give KO another year, I have 0 problems getting a qb early on and developing him but I really think we need to focus on giving KO weapons and fixing our D until we know for sure KO isn't the one instead of looking for problems that may not be there just because it's the norm around here.
January 6, 2009
#23 Rancid said . . .Vick Vick Vick! All about it
January 6, 2009
#24 jeff said . . .If Vick weren't a humongous asshole I would think seriously about him. Just having Vick helps take the pressure and carries off of Forte. When he passses, Vick uses the TE most of the time so that's a great fit too. Plus it doesn't matter that we have shit for WR since he's not going to use them all that much anyway. But then I keep coming back to that whole humongous asshole thing.
January 6, 2009
#25 bfos7215 said . . .i have a feeling the bears might look more for a gus frerotte-type, who it doesn't look like is going back to minnesota. just a veteran presence, capable of winning ballgames if need be.
January 6, 2009
#26 Umm said . . .Gus Ferotte lost his job to T. Jackson. Both were atrocious. I hope to God we don't go that direction.
@Urlacher FTW: Give me a break. 11 wins had only failed to make the playoffs 1 other time in the history of the NFL 16-game season. That was a dang good team and was left out in an odd situation (which also allowed another AFC team, with THREE fewer wins, into the playoffs) . Their situation was no where close to the situation the Bears found themselves (close to the playoffs ONLY because the rest of their division was so equally pathetic).
January 6, 2009
#27 animal said . . .How would the Patriots winning the AFC East or a Wildcard spot have affected the AFC West Division winner from getting into the playoffs?
January 6, 2009
#28 animal said . . .Vick is a terrible QB. Bring him in to back up KO and run the wildcat. Vick, Hester and Forte in a 3-back wildcat type formation.
January 6, 2009
#29 jdawg said . . .aahhhhhhh! I said this shit first!!!
(from Haugh's article)As much respect as safety Mike Brown has earned in his nine seasons in Chicago, it has been a while since the Bears received the type of game-changing play from the safety position Ed Reed of the Ravens and Brian Dawkins of the Eagles supplied Sunday. The Bears' Cover-2 functions at its highest level with safeties capable of controlling games in stretches, a reality that would make a player such as free safety Taylor Mays of USC hard to overlook at the No. 18 spot if Mays enters the NFL draft. ...
January 6, 2009
#30 animal said . . .Man, comparing Brown to Ed Reed is a little out there. Nobody said Brown is Ed Reed. You may want to take a look at who's playing in the front 7 in front of Reed and how they played this year.
If we take Mays in the first I say put him in there at WS WITH Brown. Brownie can stay in the box and lay the wood and be a full-time on the field coach.
January 6, 2009
#31 animal said . . .ANOTHER paper makes my point about the USC safety. Get on board with what I said yesterday boys:
"Smith knows he has been operating without a true free safety and bemoaned the problem in his season-ending news conference. It’s time to be bold in the draft; remember, they have to make moves at all costs. If USC junior Taylor Mays (left) comes out and is within reach in the first round, Angelo needs to get him. Mays is the kind of big, physical safety who can run all day and would be an instant playmaker in a secondary that thrives on takeaways."
(from the Sun-Times)
January 6, 2009
#32 JWilson said . . .I didnt compare Brown to Reed- that would be retarded. I'm saying we need a big time safety.
January 6, 2009
#33 The Ghost of Halas said . . .We should look at O.J. Atogwe at safety.
Vick? Vick? Not sure what to think about that? If he's still got the skills he had in Atlanta, might be worth looking into. Who knows what the league will do once he gets out and tries for a come back. One thing that bothers me about him is the whole cold weather thing. Remember a few years back when Vick complained that he couldn't preform well in cold weather. In fact he blamed the cold for their loss.
January 6, 2009
#34 Murph said . . .Haha. Come on guys. Vick is not the answer to anything. At all. Ever. Vick is a scum of the earth type individual. If the Bears could not handle Tank Johnson and Cedric Benson, why would they ever tolerate Michael Vick?
Not to mention, Vick sucks. He has the ability to scramble, but that isn't what a quarterback is meant to do. The question is, can he get the ball to recievers through the air? The answer is: Maybe. That's not good enough. Not to mention it is incredibly unlikely that Vick will be reinstated by the hard-nosed Goodell. A Brian Griese, Gus Ferrotte type quarterback is needed on the team, just to stablize Orton as the starter. Give him some more direction. At the beginning of the season, when Tampa Bay came to town, Orton stated that Griese had been his mentor during his hiatus from the starting role, showing him the mechanics and how to analyze game film. Pep Hamilton is good, but a veteran presence is great.
Slezak must be missing an essential chromosome to suggest that Michael Vick would be a good fit in Chicago. And you all thought David Haugh was a horrendous sports writer.
January 6, 2009
#35 animal said . . .Hey Animal.......that remark ya made yesterday about Grossmans physical size, kind of like Drew Brees, onlyRG is slightly bigger... so much for the physical attributes bein the problem.
January 6, 2009
#36 CA BEAR FAN said . . .it took you that long to come up with one anomalous comparison?
January 6, 2009
#37 CA BEAR FAN said . . .I wouldnt mind the Bears looking into Bryon Leftwich....the guy has speed and a Cannon for a arm...he just got injured
January 6, 2009
#38 Murph said . . .I also say that we move Vasher to FS and Kevin Payne to SS...Bump Graham to start at corner with Tillman
January 6, 2009
#39 Windy City Packer Fan said . . .Nah it didn't take me long, I was just waiting till I saw you post another comment...and you know how to use polysyllabic words too!! I ammmmm impressed. Guess I'll never question your comments again, you apparently know much more than the rest of us.
January 6, 2009
#40 Willie from Chicago said . . .Do you think Marinelli will bring that guy from his staff that went through the Wendy's drive thru wearing nothing but a smile?
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/01/06/marinelli-offered-job-with-bears/
January 6, 2009
#41 Willie from Chicago said . . .Hell, Id pick up Vick, hed basically cost nothing to the Bears lol.
But we need a change in culture. We will not be able to win games on defense from now on until we can fix our D line. We will need to score some points next year.
BEAR DOWN IN 09!
January 6, 2009
#42 jdawg said . . .BTW im just kidding about Vick.
January 6, 2009
#43 Mike Brown has a Posse said . . .well, Lloyd Lee is history.
Man, don't even put Grossman in the same sentence as Brees.
This is starting to smell fishy. All the changes have been at the bottom of the coaching staff.
January 7, 2009
#44 zmac said . . .As someone who has never read anything else by Carol "Land of the Lost" Slesak....is she a charity case or something? What reporter that covers the Bears and/or the NFL in general thinks that the Bears have a tradition of coveting felons? That's Baltimore.
Still absolutely flabbergasted.
Besides, I'm sure his knees are a wreck after his time in the pen.
January 7, 2009
#45 shonbear said . . .So when do we start talking about the draft?
No thanks on Vick...
Out of all the receivers mentioned, Boldin is the best fit. He is a guy who can make things happen in space and gets TONS of YAC yardage. He is TOUGH and would be a play maker. We have Hester who is a good deep threat and a solid TE in Olsen. Boldin would give is a solid #1 who doesnt drop balls and is hard to tackle.
January 7, 2009
#46 zisk said . . .These lower echelon coaching changes seem like concessions for Lovie to keep Da Bitch employed.
Vick coming to Chicago rings too much of when we got Cordell Stewart and how'd that work for us?
I'd rather experiment with Tebow before giving Vick a chance.
Dropped passes, hard to find team stats for the whole NFL, or lack of my wanting to spend more time on it. Here is what I did find of interest.
Listed in the whole NFL is 1 Bear and 5 x-Bears.
Davis tied with Berrian for 7 drops for the season. Moose had 8.
If you are interested here's the link.
http://sports.iwon.com/nfl/stats/passesdropped.html
January 7, 2009
#47 KentuckyBearsFan said . . .For everyone that mentioned cassel listen to this. The year they acquired moss and welker, brady passed for 1277 more yards 26 more touchdowns 4 less interceptions and his passer rating jumped from 87.9 to 117.2. I took the percent increase for those four stats and applied it cassel. Therefore I project a mossless and welkerless cassel to throw for 2712 yards 10 touchdowns 16 interceptions and post a 67.1 passer rating. Please for the love of god, let's sign him so the mccaskeys can shell out 14 million a year. Seriously we would have been 11-5 with their schedule too.
January 7, 2009
#48 BearDown1982 said . . .Vick has only two possible NFL destinations:
#1 Cincinatti Bengals
(they'll take anybody, even Cedric Benson)#2 Cleveland Browns
(because the awkward fan shots
with the Dog Pound would be priceless)January 7, 2009
I'm doubting Mays stays around until the 18th pick. A safety with 4.2 40 speed? I don't see it. Someone will probably bite.
In regard to Brownie, I'm torn. He has long been my favorite Bear. So much so that I have his jersey in home and away colors. His best days are clearly behind him, but I also think he had a solid season and helped our defense against the run.
If he is willing to come back for the minimum, perhaps he can platoon at strong safety depending on our depth at that position next year. Who knows...regardless, even if he isn't a Bear next year, I hope he catches on somewhere and his body holds up for him for once.
Mike Vick? No way. He was never a good QB in the first place and he would be a HUGE distraction. Plus, I don't want to see PETA in front of Soldier Field before every Bears game.
January 7, 2009
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.