Windy City Gridiron: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: Voodoo Five for South Florida Bulls Fans!

Why this Bears team doesn't need a FRANCHISE QB.

The Chicago Bears have a sacred and hollowed football history, that has fostered and developed some of the greatest players in the game.  Butkus, Sayers, Payton, and Grange among others.  However, since the very late 70s, there has never been a solid franchise QB in Chicago Bears history.

And why should we be banking on one now with Rex Grossman.  Chicago Bears football has always been about tremendous DEFENSE and a strong RUNNING GAME.  But as of the past two years, it seems as if us Bears fans have become enamored with the idea of having a franchise QB.  We've turned into a fan base divided along the lines of "Anti-Rex" or "Pro-Rex."  Personally, I don't think that Grossman is a complete QB, but I can also say that last year his receiving corps could have done more to help pull him through his struggles.  I also think that Turner has got to take a bit of responsibility in this matter as it is HIS offense and he has to tailor it to fit his personnel.

At this point though, I am wondering if the need for a FRANCHISE QB is necessarily what the Chicago Bears need to be focusing on.  I mean... if you think about it, the Bears have won REGARDLESS of who was at the helm the past 2 years, and I expect the same this year.  As quickly as fans like to point at the 7 plus-100 rating games, many others are quick to point at the other Rex who put up performances that was less than 10 points!?

However, the Bears are solid from every other point.  Their defensive unit boasts several all-pro players and/or players in the top 5 of their position.  Their depth is unparalleled compared to many other teams in the league.  Although aging, the offensive line has played together several years and boasts several probowl players past and present.  The run game has been solid the past two years and the special team unit is unrivaled with Devin Hester and NOW Garrett Wolfe and Daniel Manning in the backfield.

More importantly... despite Rex Grossman's erradic play, the Bears have won time and time again.  Sometimes seemingly as if Grossman was playing for the other team!?

The Bears, at this point, only need a game manager.  Similar to what Ben Rothelisburger was in Pittsburgh and Tom Brady was in the Patriots first championship run.  Someone who can make the intermediate pass when need be, but also effectively drive the ball down the field and manage the game.

Now at this point in his development, I don't think that Kyle Orton is ready to fill those shoes.  Hell?  I don't know if he's ready for the role as a backup QB.  However, I do think that Brian Griese is capable of steadying the course and doing the little things that made the offense successful in those seven games last year.

I believe that the Bears have to make a SERIOUS decision this year about the inconsistent play of Rex Grossman.  They have to be VERY mindful of the "window of opportunity" to be atop of the division and conference.

I know many of you will see this as an opportunity to say, "Give Rex a chance," or to say, "I agree!  We should start Griese."  But, all I am saying is that we need to assess the right now.  And the right now is this...

... The Bears are Super Bowl ready right now-- regardless who is at the helm of QB.  But there needs to be an accurate assessment of what Rex is capable of doing. Free of emotional attachments and void of desires to have a "franchise QB."

0 recs  |  Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Amen
If we don't put our defense in a bad spot, we aren't giving up more than 13 a game.

Run the ball, control the clock, and move the chains with possession routes, there is just no reason to have the quarterback making high-risk throws.

If Grossman will not throttle in down, either Orton or Greise should be the quarterback.  We don't need 300 yard passing games, we need 11-14 for 150 (with no fumbles or interceptions)

by Santos Sorrow on Aug 26, 2007 8:35 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Have you all just
completely forgotten the Seattle game?  I know it went into overtime, but I seem to recall Rex Grossman NEEDing to pass for 282 yards.  21/38, which isn't GREAT, but 38 passes are way more than 14.  Perhaps he had 24 passes in OT.  

What about the Tampa game where he passed for 339 yards (in OT again) going 29/44?  Maybe he had 30 passes in OT.  Oh, our defense was banged up?  Yeah, that's what happens in the NFL, defenses get banged up.  It's a damn near certainty.

Passing for 11/14 for 150 yards is really damn good.  It would take a HOF QB to do that every game.  It would also require Ron Turner to call only 14 pass plays (or a few more since presumably there would be some sacks and a few INTs/fumbles on occasion).  

Think about it, a QB throwing for 11/14 for 150 yards every game would have a QB rating of 111, and that is with 0 TD passes.  Even if he just had 1 TD per game it would be 135.  Yeah, if we could do that every game we'd be good, but you're in la la land because a QB simply cannot do that every game.  Also, we would have to rush the ball at least 30-40 rushes a game.  That only works if you have Walter Payton.  Has anyone noticed he is no longer on the Bears active roster?

If teams stack the box, we NEED to pass more times, and to be successful sometimes that will REQUIRE we pass for more than 300 yards.  If the underneath receivers are double-covered and Berrian has one on one coverage, guess where the ball should be thrown.

"Possession routes".  What does that mean?  Running curls and skinny posts and ins/outs all the time?  Come on.  Would you even want to WATCH that game?  

"no fumbles or interceptions"?  Are you listening to yourself?  You're going to allow for 0 fumbles and 0 interceptions during the season?  You don't think you're asking a bit much?

"World Champs" on 3. 1...2...3, "WORLD CHAMPS!"

by mikebdot on Aug 27, 2007 8:39 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe...
The Bears don't NEED a franchise QB...but they do need a guy who will not make the big mistakes Grossman made last year, which usually happened when we most needed the offense to come through.

by lopey986 on Aug 26, 2007 8:55 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

If you run the same routes over and over...
the defense jumps the routes.  There is no such thing as a "low risk" throw.  Especially when your offensive line cannot open up running lanes.  

By the way, for all of those who think Grossman should be like Trent Dilfer, perhaps you should actually look at his stats before opening your foolish mouths.

Here are some choice years.  I even left out his rookie year where he played in 5 games, losing them all.  Listed are QB ratings less than 60.  Arbitrary cut off, but whatever.

http://www.nfl.com/players/trentdilfer/gamelogs?id=DIL049692&season=1995

Single game ratings of 13.6, 19.4, 46.2, 51.7, 52.3, 54.7, 54.9

http://www.nfl.com/players/trentdilfer/gamelogs?id=DIL049692&season=1996

15.7, 23.4, 33.5, 34.0, 51.5, 52.5

http://www.nfl.com/players/trentdilfer/gamelogs?id=DIL049692&season=1997

0, 27.5, 47.9, 51.9, 59.4

http://www.nfl.com/players/trentdilfer/gamelogs?id=DIL049692&season=1998

34.2, 38.2, 38.6, 49.0

http://www.nfl.com/players/trentdilfer/gamelogs?id=DIL049692&season=1999

37.0, 44.2, 48.1, 58.9 (played in 10 games that year)

How about the beloved Super Bowl season?

http://www.nfl.com/players/trentdilfer/gamelogs?id=DIL049692&season=2000

33.5, 35.3, 41.9, 50.8, 58.6 (only played in 13 games, only losing 2 of those crappy 5)

The FACT is, Rex performed damn near identically to Trent Dilfer did in 2000.  It just so happened  they had 10 INTs that year.  

This SUPPOSED "possession" quarterback simply doesn't exist.  Who is it you people want us to have?  You want Griese in there?  Do you think he'll be THAT GUY?  It's possible it would just work itself out, but it's just not likely.  

Also, if we don't need 300 yard passing games, we'll need some 150+ yard rushing games.  Hopefully our line doesn't suck as bad as they have in preseason.  With a full front in there maybe they won't (Tait was out in game 2 and Brown was out in game 3), but we'll NEED that too.  

And don't forget, we may NEED a 300 yard game come playoff time when our defense might be banged up again.  It'd be nice to have someone in there who we know could do it if needed...

"World Champs" on 3. 1...2...3, "WORLD CHAMPS!"

by mikebdot on Aug 26, 2007 9:03 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Clarification...
What I meant to say about the 10 INTs was that the Ravens had 10 INTs in the playoffs in 2000.  That certainly helped matters.  Also, they had 3 defensive scores.  Oh yeah, one of those awful ratings in 2000 by Dilfer was in the playoffs against Ten, but he didn't throw any picks, just went 5/16.  Awful nice of them to call only 16 passes for him to throw.  It also helped Ray Lewis had a pick-6 in that game...
"World Champs" on 3. 1...2...3, "WORLD CHAMPS!"

by mikebdot on Aug 26, 2007 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dingus says what?
Weren't you the dingleberry that just wrote a diary about how foolish using the QB rating for single games was?

People, if you ever want to be able to have a cogent debate, either stick with the same philosophies, or freely admit that you were wrong before and have since changed your mind.

WOW!!!

by tyger1147 on Aug 26, 2007 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You fight BS stats with...
BS stats.  It's called using an argument and showing how foolish it is.  So eat a d!ck, pal.
"World Champs" on 3. 1...2...3, "WORLD CHAMPS!"

by mikebdot on Aug 27, 2007 6:23 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Fight BS with BS?
So that makes your argument no better. Nice job.

by tyger1147 on Aug 27, 2007 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I love it how
you say nothing, but think you have...

Everyone points at the QB rating in a single game as the sign of Grossman sucking, then they ask for a "possession" type QB, e.g. Trent Dilfer.  This diary didn't mention Dilfer but others have and I just wanted to lay that baby to rest because if the 2000 Trent Dilfer were the QB of the Bears last season we probably would have ended up in the same position, possibly not even winning the two playoff games prior to the super bowl.  And that was his, what, 6th season starting?  If Grossman can make an improvement this season overall, with a rating of, say, 80+ would you people stop asking for silly things like running "possession" routes and "playing smart" or just generally hatin' on him?  And, I said in my diary that the QB rating is fairly useful for season stats, so don't even go there.

"World Champs" on 3. 1...2...3, "WORLD CHAMPS!"

by mikebdot on Aug 27, 2007 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd agree with that last part.
And you can search for it if you want. I've said all along that if Grossman finishes the season with an 83-86 QB rating, the Bears will have dominated again. However, I think he needs to do it with less deviation. I'll take 4 less "great" games if it means 3 less "horrible" games (see how I'm not using that single-game rating thing you so despise?). He needs to find consistency. I don't think he will.

I love your unbridled confidence in a guy who doesn't deserve it. And I like to point at you and laugh. As you said, no one mentioned Trent Dilfer, but you brought him because "that's what most people mean" or whatever you said. Straw mans are nice.

by tyger1147 on Aug 28, 2007 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You should go to Borders...
...and read the Chicago Bears section. It has a great column-piece in the Bears section about how Trent Dilfer is unfairly criticized for how bad he was. Meaning, he wasn't really that bad. And I think they have stats and stuff, too. And I don't think your method of "sometimes I like 'em, sometimes I don't--depends if they support my argument or not" style with them either.

by tyger1147 on Aug 26, 2007 10:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Plus...
it's a very easy way to flag problem games, just as someone mentioned in the other thread.  My contention is that the QB Rating has no inherent value.  Just show the 0 TD/1 or 2 INTs and you'll know a QB has a low rating since they've probably minimized the contribution of those two stats, which, at most, puts them at a 79.  

But for those people that really love reading those articles on chicagobears.com on how Grossman had a poor rating in 5 games and they just list them over and over, well, there's a list that will open your eyes.  That's the point.

"World Champs" on 3. 1...2...3, "WORLD CHAMPS!"

by mikebdot on Aug 27, 2007 6:26 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Big word alert!
Inherent value? What stats have inherent value?

by tyger1147 on Aug 27, 2007 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well...
A TD = 6 points.  An INT = turning the ball over on downs.  A completion is a completion.  A 13 yard pass is a 13 yard gain.  

10 QB rating = ???????  5 QB rating = ?????

"World Champs" on 3. 1...2...3, "WORLD CHAMPS!"

by mikebdot on Aug 27, 2007 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's not inherent value.
Saying someone scored a TD means nothing if you don't know what that means or even what context it came in. No statistic has inherent value. It's only valued in the context in which it's used.

by tyger1147 on Aug 28, 2007 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're referring to Football Prospectus, right...
not just any book at Borders.  

It's a really good piece for anyone that didn't get a chance to read it...Trent Dilfer got a bit screwed by the media given his level of play.

by dejackso on Aug 27, 2007 8:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ahhhhh, shit.
My bad. Yes, I meant the Pro Football Prospectus. I highly recommend it to MikeBdot. And to anyone else. Just go in and read the Bears part. It's disturbing as a fan, but it's also an interesting read.

by tyger1147 on Aug 28, 2007 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Disagree.
Trot out the names and reverential history all you want, but the fact of the matter is one Championship season since 1963 ought to tell you that the Bears have been missing pieces for a Championship team for over 40 years. The wasteland of Bears' QBs during that time has contributed to that. I mean, don't you think it would have been nice to have a QB that was better than Bobby Douglass while Sayers was wrapping up his career and Butkus was in his prime? I sure as shit do.

Is Grossman a franchise QB? I say 'potentially' and want to give him the chance to deomnstrate said potential.

I am, however, tired of mediocrity at the position, and blanch at the notion of a 'Ravens 2000' approach because I'd rather have something sustaining. Give Rex this year and if it doesn't work out McNabb becomes available MAYBE next off-season and certainly by 2009.

Our D is young and deep, and we could wait that out if necessary. In the meantime, we need to back Grossman. It's just that simple. If he doesn't work out, then we MUST make a move to find a player that fits as more than a Dilfer'-like care taker. And I liked Trent Dilfer.

by PopeFlick on Aug 27, 2007 9:41 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

They Need a Franchise QB to be Great
No team has ever won multiple Super Bowls without a Franchise QB.  

There is no more important position on the field.

by SenatorSteve on Aug 27, 2007 11:12 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

That's kind of misleading though...
because ANY QB who wins multiple Super Bowls is automatically called a Franchise QB.  It is kind of reverse cause and effect in that way.

by dejackso on Aug 27, 2007 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not That Simple
Here are the list of QB's who have won multiple Super Bowls:

Bart Starr
Roger Staubach
Bob Griese
Terry Bradshaw
Joe Montana
Troy Aikman
John Elway
Tom Brady

Each of these players is a premier quarterback and not merely someone "who doesn't lose the game."  If Rex Grossman doesn't rise to their level, we need to find someone who does, or the Bears will not have sustained dominance.

by SenatorSteve on Aug 28, 2007 1:27 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think that list shows what I'm saying though...
these are people who are considered franchise QBs partly because they won multiple Super Bowls and not the other way around.

Terry Bradshaw is a great example.  He's a low percentage passer who threw as many INTs as TDs over his career.  He got by from being on a good team.  He didn't throw more TD passes than INTs in a season until age 27.  Does that sound like any former Florida QB playing for the Bears that we know?  

Why is Terry so highly rated? Its not his skills...its his rings.  

I'm not saying that you're wrong about needing a good QB...I'm just saying that the reason no team has ever won multiple Super Bowls without a franchise QB is due to the fact that winning multiple Super Bowls automatically makes the media and fans think of that QB as a franchise QB.

Interesting side note about the QBs you mentioned (here are how many seasons it took for that QB to throw more TDs than INTs):
Bart Starr - 7 seaons (age 28)[12TD 9INT]
Roger Staubach - 3 seasons (age 29) [15TD 4INT]
Bob Griese - 2 seasons (age 23) [21TD 16INT]
Terry Bradshaw - 6 seasons (age 27) [18 TD 9INT]
Joe Montana - right away
Troy Aikman - 3 seasons (age 25) [11TD 10INT]
John Elway - 2 seasons (age 24) [18TD 15INT]
Tom Brady - pretty much right away
Rex Grossman -  4 seasons (age 26) [23TD 20INT]
{Rex did it in his first but under very little PT}

That's ahead of two HOFers, about on pase with TWO HOFers, and beat by a #1 pick, a legend, a living legend, and Bob Griese.  

by dejackso on Aug 28, 2007 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with that point.
It happens in all sports. A player in a team sport who wins multiple championships is automatically considered awesome. QB's have more responsibility and more impact, so typically they could get more blame/credit. My only hope is that if Grossman falters, and this team wins a Super Bowl, that they don't extend him at a ridiculous price. If he shows improvement (but not a drastic turnaround), and this team wins, re-sign him. But don't pay him like Tom Brady.

by tyger1147 on Aug 28, 2007 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You might be shocked
but I agree with every word you just said.

If he has less than 5 "horrible" games where he throws 0 TDs/3 INTs+ (a few with fumbles as well) then it's an improvement.  If it drops to 2 or 3 games I still think we should re-sign him (if that happens, I'm sure his rating will be 80+, unless in the 2 or 3 games he has 5 or 6 interceptions).  I do NOT have unbridled confidence in him.  I do however think we ought to wait until he plays a few regular season season games to make a judgment on the matter...

The whole "Dilfer" thing relates to me reading that elsewhere, not here.  I did ask the question though, who do you have in mind?  Seems like everyone wants Griese in there, since he's playing so well against scrubs.  Whatever.

I'm still not sure why using convoluted logic to fight convoluted logic shows anything less than the absurdity of the convoluted logic.  Notice the intense sarcasm when mentioning the "beloved" SB year of 2000 where Dilfer had 5 piss poor performances, one of which was in a playoff game.  

"World Champs" on 3. 1...2...3, "WORLD CHAMPS!"

by mikebdot on Aug 28, 2007 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I concur
I think we agree but are just explaining it two different ways.

Bradshaw, in my opinion, wasn't better than Trent Green.  When I say "Franchise QB," I mean a player who at the minimum is reliable and a borderline Pro Bowler.

Grossman can become that player, but he hasn't done it yet.

by SenatorSteve on Aug 28, 2007 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Consistency here?
If you are not going to count Rex's first year in a positive manner (i.e. a rating "right away") because of a lack of playing time, then why would you count it as part of "4 seasons"?  Seems a little inconsistent.

by SC Bears fan on Aug 29, 2007 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

My reasons
Both Joe Montana and Tom Brady were succesful in their second seasons (their first full seasons), but already passed the criteria in their first season under limited playing time.

Honestly, all three (Montana, Brady, Grossman) met the criteria in the first year...but only Grossman regressed (mostly due to injury, I believe).  Given the lack of playing time for all three in the first, I pretty much just ignored it.  It's a descriptive analysis so consistancy of method isn't necessary.  

I had two points

  1. Multiple SB winners are automatically considered franchise QBs
  2. Rex needs more time to be judged.
Ignoring Rex's limited first season doesn't really change point 2.

by dejackso on Aug 29, 2007 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Windy City Gridiron is the best independent site on the internet for breaking news, in-depth analysis, and hardcore discussion about the Chicago Bears

Community Guidelines
Start posting about the Bears »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

Comcast NFL RedZone Moments from SB Nation

FanPosts

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

SPONSORS

SBNation.com Recent Stories

Photo link

A Deeper Look At The 2009 Cowboys Running Game

Photo +1 updates

Rams, Redskins Showing Interest In QB Sam Bradford

Photo +2 updates

Scot McCloughan Confirms He Is Out At 49ers GM

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

Windycity_small Adam T

Photo_small Dane Noble

Editor

19554_711053815498_20723723_41499369_7695586_n_small HoneyBear

Contributing Writers

19936057_m_medium_small MuleTrain

Evalltheway_small SackMan

Bears_small Sklz711

Attachment27_small Lester A. Wiltfong Jr.

Bow-icon_small smudgers

Chicago-bears-logo_small Mark Saade

N506182155_130313_2606_small Kev H