Bears Still Have No QB
by Adam T on Aug 18, 2008 7:12 AM CDT
Email
PrintI am sure the boys upstairs will find a way to spin it to make it sound not all that bad, but sadly the Bears don't have a QB, because neither of them is playing very well.
"We'll evaluate all of that." Smith said. "We had made a decision how we were going to start the first two games, and that's about as far as we've gone."
Smith's evaluation of Grossman's start vs. Seattle didn't seem to bode well, nor did Grossman's passer rating of 44.9, which included an intentional grounding penalty.
The Bears' first-team offense failed to score under Grossman, and although there were others to blame, the most glaring light was cast on the quarterback.
"We didn't play good as an offense as a whole," Smith said. "I'm not really pleased with what many of our offensive guys did early. We didn't get a lot done. Rex was a part of that."
At this point I am struggling to find a reason in any of them that says they are worth the effort. And while third string QB, Caleb Hanie's success has come against weaker defenses and I know he wouldn't fair as well if he started I am enticed to say let him start at least, so I have somebody different to complain about.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
lets talk about the o line
the real discussion should be which qb has a better medical plan… that should determine the starter.
while it might seem possible that kyle is going to start sep 7, i think we are going to see both qbs, alternating based on who has the most limbs…. but like lovie says its a week to week thing.
ive heard about a trade for shaffer with the browns.. couldnt hurt, hes still young and hasnt missed a game in awhile.
So if we think it is all on the line
then we should start the QB that has the best combo of pocket presence and maneuverability.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
bro,
i dont think it matters. i mean rex got called for intentional grounding….out of the shotgun formation!
and all summer ive heard how tait is moving over to his natural right side and nothing looked natural when he failed to pick up blitz’s and his guy schooled him on his way to hitting rex from the blindside.
heres a quote from tait:
“I have some plays I wish I could have had back, especially the one when Rex got hit,” Tait said after the Seahawks won 29-26 in overtime. “I have to protect better. I have to pick it up and be ready. It’s important that Rex has time to throw.”
I agree. I like Grossman better, but Orton "gives us the best chance to win."
If we can get the QB 3-4 seconds like every other team in the league, I would like Grossman back in there, but that won’t happen with this line.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
Question about the intentional grounding call
If I saw it correctly, Greg Olsen was doing a bad blocking job, but he was literally 2 feet from Grossman and I thought he was trying to drop it over the defenders head to Olsen. Depsite, since Olsen was right there shouldn’t it have been an incomplete pass.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
Yeah, I saw that and thought the same.
The only thing I could say in the refs favor is that it didn’t look like Rex was looking at him and threw the ball in a direction that Olsen couldn’t catch it, but Olsen was pretty close to that pass. I don’t think Rex knew exactly where Olsen was but was trying to make it look like he was throwing to him.
I’ve seen a lot worse get allowed on intentional grounding. I say no penalty.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
agreed
sad as it is to admit, when I looked at that play, I was actually impressed by Rex’s ability to improvise like that and make a case for an incomplete pass with three defensemen about a half second away from ripping his head off. it was in the near vicinity of Olsen, who’s definitely an eligible receiver, and shouldn’t have been called the way it was.
bad call.
by The Spaniard on Aug 18, 2008 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions
I thought Rex
knew exactly where he was trying to pass the ball, but Olsen wasn’t looking to make a catch, he was too busy trying to block from behind?
I though considering the pressure Grossman got he actually handled it well.
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
If we had just made the effort to get Grady what's his name from Notre Dame
there would at least be some hope here!
This is ridiculous!!
Acquire Simms - Cut Grossman
Please!
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Even Though the O-Line Stunk
Grossman still has no pocket awareness. When he threw that interception – how could he not sense that blitz?!
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
No...
trade Orton (and a 7th / 6th round pick, if necessary) for Simms. TB / Gruden will love the chance to evaluate yet another young QB and simultaneously rid themselves of Simms after his “irreparable damage has been done to the relationship” campaign earlier this summer.
keep Rex – he’ll make for a much, much better backup / mid-game replacement than Orton. I would reference last year’s Oakland game as a prime example.
by The Spaniard on Aug 18, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions
TB may release Simms
I think we can get Simms cheaper than a 6th/7th round pick. Keep Orton Because:
Grossman still has no pocket awareness. When he threw that interception – how could he not sense that blitz?!
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
and thats fine
but is he really going to improve us? How long before he can start?
Being Who You Thought We Were Since 2005!
No, no, and no...
I’m sorry, bit it is officially time to stop waiting for bargains to fall into our laps and time to start going out and paying market value, maybe even a little above it, for an obvious boost to the roster / franchise now that the rare opportunity has presented itself, in the exact hour that everybody is (finally) realizing what a sad situation we’re in to try and start the season. the only thing to be gained from waiting for his release would be competition from other franchises secretly sweating the opportunity just as hard (though probably slightly less obviously) as the Bears are. don’t tell me that you’ll be able to get a great discount to his current contract in free agency with all of the teams out there that are starving for a clearcut starter at the position and would be willing to bid his price right back up should he suddenly become a free-for-all target. getting him earlier means he’ll have had two more weeks to learn the playbook by the time he’s forced into the lineup come midseason, coincidentally the point where we might be getting Chris Williams back from injury ot help out the line (yeah, that’ll be unfair to whoever is the starting QB at the time, but that’s the way this franchise works, so you might as well prepare for it as best you can).
I didn’t agree with your comment on the INT the first time, and quoting your own post did nothing to change my mind the second time around. to judge a QB’s pocket awareness on any given play, you need to have, at a minimum, some semblance of an actual pocket to begin with. that wasn’t a blitz – Tait got torched by his assignment on that play, and thus, there was no formation of a “pocket” after which Rex could have had the remote possibility of exhibiting his awareness. while I actually agree with your assessment that Rex yet to show great awareness, don’t go after his nuts and criticize it on an unrelated play just because the play resulted in an interception. that’s just BS, and it perpetuates this grand illusion that Rex is the source of all of this offense’s (o-line’s) problems.
it’s also BS to say "when he threw that interception – ". instead, try "on the play where his right tackle was supposed to block that 260-or-whatever-pound end from launching himself full speed at the quaterback but instead opted to allow him a free shot — which the end barely managed to capitalize on anyways because Rex was so quick to recognize an open man following his __-step drop and went directly into his passing motion to avoid what should have otherwise been a sack — causing the play to result in an interception – ". that seems like it would be the more-appropriate reference.
by The Spaniard on Aug 18, 2008 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions
So
you’re saying you’d rather give up a pick than wait for the guy to become a free agent? I mean, I would rather have him for free than have to give something up for no reason.
Oh, and I wouldn’t classify Simms as an “obvious boost to the roster”. He’s had a few average seasons and we don’t even know if he’s that good to begin with.
I don’t know, on one hand a want some fresh blood in at QB, but on the other hand, I think “why waste a roster spot on someone we know is probably gonna struggle with the o-line we have”. Just stick Grossman in there and let him throw screen passes all day to Wolfe…
I am like your Dan Aykroyd and biglow would be Jane, the ignorant slut. -Chad
Yes, I would have rather given up Orton and a late-round pick...
… and gotten him now instead of waiting until he was released, which we actually aren’t even sure is going to happen at this point.
your second point is kind of missing the main idea I’m trying to get across – in pretty much everybody’s opinion right now, we don’t have a viable long- or intermediate-term option between Rex/Orton/Hanie, so going out and getting a former franchise-QB-to-be (for next to nothing) and seeing if he can in fact develop into that franchise quarterback seems like a pretty decent strategy to me, given the current cirumstances. if the coaches and the organization seem to think there’s value to be had there with Simms after doing their due diligence on him (and they seem to think so, otherwise they wouldn’t have been scouting him in a preseason game as a previous thread pointed out), then I’m saying they shouldn’t get so damn stingy and wait for his already-low price to hit absolute rock bottom before making a move. its just stupid.
and I don’t think you read my post very carefully. I was saying (pretty clearly, I thought) that the value you’d have to give up to get him in a trade would be pretty comparable to the value of eliminating the risk of not getting him in the free agent market, as there is sure to be one or more competing bids from teams around the league that recognize how undervalued he PROBABLY is. he would be priced at a bargain right now because (1) he’s a supposed injury risk, (2) is way down (5th?) on the depth chart on a loaded QB roster, and (3) is disgruntled and has publicly stated he wants out of TB.
and yes, I realize that there’s nobody there to block for him right now, and in all likelihood he probably wouldn’t come in and save the 2008 season if we were to try and start him before we solve the o-line problem, but couldn’t the move be worth it if it doesn’t cost much and might be a long-term solution to the QB question, allowing the organization to focus on the o-line and receiver issues in next year’s draft / free agency and avoid the question of whether we need another QB?
everybody on this board is (predictably) now calling out for a Hanie start because they want to “have somebody new to complain about”, and we’re only through two preseason games… once we’ve gone through the next 18 games left in 2008, and we’ve given every one of our three quarterbacks a chance to get mauled by both opposing defensemen and the Chicago media / fanbase, you’re going to end the season with three QBs that everybody will have probably given up on and/or crucified for the offense’s troubles and have a management group that will feel compelled to either sign a pricey, old free agent or use too high of a draft pick on an unproven prospect to get their next potential franchise quarterback. sure, that’s all hyperbolic speculation, but I don’t don’t think too many people would be at all surprised if that’s how things ended up. and compared to those two options, a backup quarterback and a 7th round pick doesn’t look like too bad of a deal to me for a new, fresh, viable option to look forward to right now – one that maybe hasn’t yet proven himself to be a franchise quarterback, but in many people’s opinion, including my own, has certainly proven he’s not an NFL bust.
of course, all of this is predicated on your individual perception of Simm’s talent, which you’re obviously down on, but for those of us that think otherwise and that recognize the organization’s apparent interest in the guy, it makes sense to make a move before the window of opportunity comes and goes. now that Orton has been named the starter, my proposed solution realistically is no longer feasible. while I hate to say it, it might be in the organization’s interests to explore similar opportunities involving other players, whatever that means…
by The Spaniard on Aug 18, 2008 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Whoever the QB is
Is a sitting duck. We might as acquire as many as we can because none will make it more than a week or two. I still say we hold out through this year and then in the offseason try to make a run at one of the Browns QBs b/c I don’t think they can sit on two starting caliber QBs forever. In the meantime, make a play for Simms.
I like WCG’s idea for starting Hanie just so there is someone new to complain about. But this is where it gets ridiculous, how long have we as fans always held that position that the QBs suck and we should start the next guy on the depth chart just so we can complain about someone different. This time it seems like it is equally on the QB and the O-line, plus throw in a weak receiving corp and there you go, a useless offense. Is there a way we can forfeit this year and still get the #1 pick!?
Bold Prediction: Orton will be the starter in week 1.
by Sam Householder on Aug 18, 2008 11:07 AM CDT reply actions
Haha
good god it is going to be a long ass year unless one of our qbs goes derek anderson on us and transforms into a pro-bowl qb and that is highly unlikely. I say we bring in Simms, just for the fact we are going to need bodies back there and that is a tough ball player, hell he played what, half a game with a ruptured spleen?
Do you and I guess others think our problem is our QB?
Sure it would be nice to see what Simms has and I’m not opposed to it, but man, I don’t think either QB has had much of a chance to show us they can play yet. I don’t think either is as bad as the world makes them out to be. Rex can play well in a pocket passer style role with a good line. I think he decision making may be better than 06, but I really can’t see much when he’s getting pounded. Kyle, isn’t ever going to put up big numbers, but he can make some plays here and there and move around to by some time. He doesn’t throw as many picks or fumble as often and can move around a little. If we are going to run so much, he seems like a good fit as a game manager at a low cost. If you want a good offense, then start by fixing this line and quit worrying about QB. No one will have a good season with this line. No one.
I think the QB’s, RB’s, and WR’s can get the job done if they can just have some space and time to do their jobs. Are they going to be the Colts and Patriots offense. Nope, but I think they can win a lot of games with a line.
I’m advising everyone to relax on both QB’s until we can block someone. You might find out our QB’s can help us win a lot of games with some blocking.
Kick it to me... I'm open!
If Rex plays just as well as he played last year after he came back in the Raiders game
this team would at least have some semblance of an offense. I think Orton represents a step down from that, especially if Ron Turner wants to use play action a lot.
If the O line is really as bad as it looked last night, though, it really doesn’t matter. Actually, I’m not sure starting Hanie is such a bad idea. At least it looks like he can get out of the way.
Orton will start the season, but it probably won’t matter. We’ll probably start all 3 QBs as the year goes on, due to injuries or suckage or both. Looks like a 3-13 year for us anyway.
Getting Chris Simms would be a waste. He’s brittle and not very good. We already have enough players who fit that description.
Putting the "Offensive" in "Offensive Line"
This entire pre-season QB derby is a smoke-screen – the real issue is the woeful offensive line. Those of you with a short memory may forget how bad the O-line was last year. Kruetz & Garza were fine, but Brown, Miller, & Tait were overmatched – so bad that 2 of 3 were let go and we drafted a rookie to replace the other.
And this year the line is shaping up to be worse! With Williams unable to make a significant contribution this year, it’s going to take some surprisingly exceptional play from the O-line for this team to go .500, let alone contend for the playoffs.
IMO, QB is #3 or #4 on list of concerns about the offense.
- Who’s going to block? Already covered this
- Who’s going to catch the ball? No one in the receiver corp scares anyone, except Devin Hester. But he has a long way to go to prove he can be an NFL #1 WR.
- Running game. With no line and no WR, the Bears will be facing 8-man fronts every down. Although I think adding Fotre and K Jones have upgraded the RB group, I don’t think it will matter who the running back is this year.
- QB. Oddly, this is the only position where the Bears should know exactly what they have. And this is the position with the big public competition – it couldn’t be more meaningless with the other issues. These poor guys are competing for the opportunity to challenge David Carr’s single-season sacked record (76) – assuming the “winner” can stay healthy enough to play the full season. Seriously, the Bears could give up 5 sacks a game (80 for a full season) if they try to pass often enough.
"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany." - Ron Burgundy
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
