Rex Grossman Breakdown

by californiabearfan on Aug 7, 2008 2:54 PM CDT Comment 110 comments

I have been reading this website for about a year now and this is my first attempt at a post. Let me first say that I am actually a Rex Grossman supporter. I do not think he is fully developed yet and to say he is a failure at this point isn't fair. This is a breakdown I have created of all of Rex Grossman's games starting since 2006.

Rk	Week		Date			Tm		Opp	Tm	Opp	Cmp	Att	Yds	TD	Int	Y/A	Cmp%	Rate	Att	Yds	Y/A	Rec	Yds	Y/R
9	1	Sun	Sep 10, 2006	box	W	CHI	@	GNB	26	0	18	26	262	1	1	10.1	69.2	98.6	1	2	2.0	1	-4	-4.0
10	2	Sun	Sep 17, 2006	box	W	CHI		DET	34	7	20	27	289	4	0	10.7	74.1	148.0	1	0	0.0
11	3	Sun	Sep 24, 2006	box	W	CHI	@	MIN	19	16	23	41	278	1	2	6.8	56.1	64.9	3	-3	-1.0
12	4	Sun	Oct 1, 2006	box	W	CHI		SEA	37	6	17	31	232	2	0	7.5	54.8	100.5	1	2	2.0
13	5	Sun	Oct 8, 2006	box	W	CHI		BUF	40	7	15	27	182	2	0	6.7	55.6	101.2
14	6	Mon	Oct 16, 2006	box	W	CHI	@	ARI	24	23	14	37	144	0	4	3.9	37.8	10.2	3	-7	-2.3
15	8	Sun	Oct 29, 2006	box	W	CHI		SFO	41	10	23	29	252	3	0	8.7	79.3	137.4
16	9	Sun	Nov 5, 2006	box	L	CHI		MIA	13	31	18	42	210	1	3	5.0	42.9	36.8
17	10	Sun	Nov 12, 2006	box	W	CHI	@	NYG	38	20	18	30	246	3	1	8.2	60.0	105.7	3	-2	-0.7
18	11	Sun	Nov 19, 2006	box	W	CHI	@	NYJ	10	0	11	22	119	1	0	5.4	50.0	81.4	1	-1	-1.0
19	12	Sun	Nov 26, 2006	box	L	CHI	@	NWE	13	17	15	34	176	0	3	5.2	44.1	23.7	2	1	0.5
20	13	Sun	Dec 3, 2006	box	W	CHI		MIN	23	13	6	19	34	0	3	1.8	31.6	1.3	4	-9	-2.3
21	14	Mon	Dec 11, 2006	box	W	CHI	@	STL	42	27	13	23	200	2	0	8.7	56.5	114.4	3	20	6.7
22	15	Sun	Dec 17, 2006	box	W	CHI		TAM	34	31	29	44	339	2	0	7.7	65.9	104.3
23	16	Sun	Dec 24, 2006	box	W	CHI	@	DET	26	21	20	36	197	1	0	5.5	55.6	80.4
24	17	Sun	Dec 31, 2006	box	L	CHI		GNB	7	26	2	12	33	0	3	2.8	16.7	0.0	2	-1	-0.5

Rex Grossman stats in 2006. He only started five games before this season, two in 2005 before he was injured and put on IR and three in 2004 before he was injured. As you can see above, all the bolded games are ones he played very well in, and the underlined ones he played especially well. The ratio of good games to bad games is 10 to 6. The Green Bay game in the last week of the season was completely meaningless and Grossman admitted to not preparing at all for the game as he thought he was not going to play more then the first series and instead they left him in until half time. If you don't count that game, he had three really bad games that counted during 2006. Two of them being very high profile so everyone saw them (the Patriots and Monday night against the Cardinals) and one of them against the Miami Dolphins. The Vikings game where he had a 0 rating was a game that had terrible weather that made it very difficult to throw the ball. The Vikings quarterback in that game also had a terrible time throwing the football.

									Score		Passing								Rushing			Receiving
Rk	Week		Date			Tm		Opp	Tm	Opp	Cmp	Att	Yds	TD	Int	Y/A	Cmp%	Rate	Att	Yds	Y/A	Rec	Yds	Y/R	RRTD
			Playoffs
1	Division	Sun	Jan 15, 2006	box	L	CHI		CAR	21	29	17	41	192	1	1	4.7	41.5	54.1	1
2	Division	Sun	Jan 14, 2007	box	W	CHI		SEA	27	24	21	38	282	1	1	7.4	55.3	76.9							0
3	ConfChamp	Sun	Jan 21, 2007	box	W	CHI		NOR	39	14	11	26	144	1	0	5.5	42.3	73.2	2	-3	-1.5				0
4	SuperBowl	Sun	Feb 4, 2007	box	L	CHI	N	IND	17	29	20	28	165	1	2	5.9	71.4	68.3	2	0	0.0				0

Rex Grossman stats in 2006 playoffs, including the one game he started against Carolina in 2005 and the Super Bowl. The interception recorded against Seattle bounced off Mushin Muhammads hands in the end zone and fell into a cornerbacks lap. Even in the Super Bowl, he completed 20-28 passes but comitted two costly turnovers. Inconsistent? Yes. Bad? No. His ratio of good games to bad games was 2 to 2

Rk	Week		Date			Tm		Opp	Tm	Opp	Cmp	Att	Yds	TD	Int	Y/A	Cmp%	Rate	Att	Yds	Y/A
25	1	Sun	Sep 9, 2007	box	L	CHI	@	SDG	3	14	12	23	145	0	1	6.3	52.2	53.7
26	2	Sun	Sep 16, 2007	box	W	CHI		KAN	20	10	20	34	160	1	2	4.7	58.8	56.0	3	-3	-1.0
27	3	Sun	Sep 23, 2007	box	L	CHI		DAL	10	34	15	32	195	0	3	6.1	46.9	27.5	1	12	12.0
28	10	Sun	Nov 11, 2007	box	W	CHI	@	OAK	17	6	7	14	142	1	0	10.1	50.0	109.8	1	0	0.0
29	11	Sun	Nov 18, 2007	box	L	CHI	@	SEA	23	30	24	37	266	0	0	7.2	64.9	86.1	4	13	3.3
30	12	Sun	Nov 25, 2007	box	W	CHI		DEN	37	34	17	33	193	1	1	5.8	51.5	66.9	4	1	0.3
31	13	Sun	Dec 2, 2007	box	L	CHI		NYG	16	21	25	46	296	1	0	6.4	54.3	81.4

Rex Grossman's stats in 2007. He started off bad in his first three games and was benched, but when he was brought back in he did very well. Against the Giants he threw for almost 300 yards and one touchdown, and Devin Hester dropped a 70 yard throw that would have brought Grossmans stats to well over 300 yards throwing and two touchdowns for the game, as well as most likely bringing a victory to the Bears. These Giants were the same team that beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl by shutting down Tom Brady. His ratio of good games to bad games was 4 to 3 in 2007. I did not include the game against the Redskins when he was injured in the first half. All in all, he has had 16 good games and 11 bad games since the beginning of 2006. These stats do not include fumbles, which have been a huge problem of his and a major flaw. He has had 18 fumbles in his career which is very bad. Holding on to the football and pocket presense are both things though that can be learned from experience. There was a time when Tiki Barber was last in the league in fumbles. He worked on it and became one of the best. Does Rex Grossman have that kind of drive? I am not sure at this point. But does he deserve a chance to work on it? I think so. Does this make him a good quarterback? No. Does this make him a bad quarterback? No. Does it make him inconsistent? Yes. But hasn't there been enough good in here to give him a fair shot? In my opinion, yes. I know that most of the view on Rex Grossman is negative and he deserves some of it. But I think that he has shown enough good that if we were to stick with him he could really develop to become something great. If you look at the statistics of some of the better quarterbacks in the league today they look very similar to Rex Grossman's first 32 starts in this league, which is actually not too far off how many starts Vince Young has had.

5 recs | Comment 110 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

good post

this post should be a permanent fixture on this web site.

i know everyone including the staff is anxious to see rex close the gap between his good and bad games.

and since this is your first post..i feel compelled to warn you that by the end of today you will have 60 comments underneath this one. something about rex really brings it out of these bloggers.

by rahulsriram on Aug 7, 2008 3:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

maybe if you could make

a point, you would feel differently.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

good one.

by rahulsriram on Aug 7, 2008 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it should've said...

“something about my posts which are usually uninformed and too optimistic for anyone’s own good really brings it out of these bloggers”

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 7, 2008 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lots of stats, but

a great post!

The problem with most of the fans that feel the way that I do (that Rex gets one more year, and if he’s inconsistent again, release him) is that we’re not going to stick with him for another five years. I feel that he’s got this year to prove himself, because then he’ll have (essentially) three full years under his belt. If he can’t be consistent next year, he’s gotta go.

Don’t bother listening to rahulsriram. While you may be a Rex supporter, he’s a Rex fanatic, and anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 7, 2008 3:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That was a lot of stats? SeriouslY?

by tyger1147 on Aug 10, 2008 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just a terrific post....

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 10, 2008 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

Have to admit I’m biased since I’ve liked Grossman since his Steve Spurrier days. He has a good locker room presence and can throw a very pretty ball. He can do some things better than most other NFL QBs (long ball accuracy for one).

That’s the good part. Of course, he is much worse than most QBs at some other things. He is completely immobile, cannot feel pressure and he is very poorly suited to a West Coast-style attack. I think he has been poorly coached throughout his NFL career too. Ron Turner may be the most unimaginative coordinator in the NFL.

Ever get the feeling while watching him that you’re seeing a shorter version of post-Parcells Drew Bledsoe? If you can actually protect him, he can be quite a bit better than replacement level. If you can’t protect him, he self-destructs and inevitably gets hurt.

Maybe some team in the NFL could do well with Grossman, like Minnesota, which has a huge offensive line. Sadly I don’t think he can succeed on the Bears. If he gets used this year, he will suck, get hurt, or both. He’s still a better option than Kyle Orton though.

by uofcdood on Aug 7, 2008 3:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

you can't do this

The interception recorded against Seattle bounced off Mushin Muhammads hands in the end zone and fell into a cornerbacks lap

if you are goig to “justify” things you have to do it both ways. for starters you can ask how good the opponents were in 06.

can’t read the whole thing now, but i am looking forward to later.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 3:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you should note whose fault the int was.

Some of Rex problems are other people and some are his. This is true of all QB’s as well, I’m not saying Rex is special.

Before the season people thought that some of the teams we would face would be a lot worse than they were like GB who we played twice and San Francisco. Our opponents weren’t that aweful 7 of the games were against .500 or better teams.

Week 1 Sep 10 W 26-0 at Green Bay Packers 8-8
Week 2 Sep 17 W 34-7 vs Detroit Lions 3-13
Week 3 Sep 24 W 19-16 at Minnesota Vikings 6-10
Week 4 Oct 1 W 37-6 vs Seattle Seahawks 9-7
Week 5 Oct 8 W 40-7 vs Buffalo Bills 7-9
Week 6 Oct 16 W 24-23 at Arizona Cardinals 5-11
Week 7 Bye Week
Week 8 Oct 29 W 41-10 vs San Francisco 49ers 7-9
Week 9 Nov 5 L 31-13 vs Miami Dolphins 6-10
Week 10 Nov 12 W 38-20 at New York Giants 8-8
Week 11 Nov 19 W 10-0 at New York Jets 10-6
Week 12 Nov 26 L 17-13 at New England Patriots 12-4
Week 13 Dec 3 W 23-13 vs Minnesota Vikings 6-10
Week 14 Dec 11 W 42-27 at St. Louis Rams 8-8
Week 15 Dec 17 W 34-31 vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers (OT) 4-12
Week 16 Dec 24 W 26-21 at Detroit Lions 3-13
Week 17 Dec 31 L 26-7 vs Green Bay Packers 8-8

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hate to disagree with you again, #23...

...but .500 in the NFC is like .350 in the AFC.

Not only that, but 43.7% (using your math) of games that we played in the ‘06 campaign were against .500 or better teams. If you take out the Packers, the Giants, and the Rams (NFC teams that finished a paltry 8-8), then it’s even worse.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 7, 2008 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Giants and Packers were better than an 8-8 team

It showed this season as both teams had similar talent and were dominant. The Rams have a sucky coach and that is all there is to say about them. San Francisco and Arizona were better than their records showed that year as well and lost a lot of close games. I’m still laughing at Arizona. We also, nearly beat the Patriots despite Rex and we did defeat the Jets who were in the AFC and were one of their best teams with a similar record as us. I think we stacked up well against the AFC that year. Had we not had the horrible defensive strategy, we may have beat their best team. Another way we could have won was for guys like Benson and Grossman to play better, but it was a team loss.

.500 to .350 is not a fair number. Sorry. You’re saying a .500 team would have lost 2-3 more games in the AFC. For one it is made up and can’t be applied or known for sure. Any team can beat any team on any day in the NFL. That is part of what makes the league so much fun. Every weak you have to bring it. I get the point, but until they play who they play and you can’t hypothesize that.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no they weren't

they were 8-8 teams, everything else is subjective and not really worth much. we also almost lost to the cardinals and vikings. we lost some close gmes this year too, and it doesn’t mean we were any better than we were.

Had we not had the horrible defensive strategy, we may have beat their best team. Another way we could have won was for guys like Benson and Grossman to play better, but it was a team loss.

yeah, the offense moving the ball helps.

i won’t belittle what he did, but i am not going to pretend he did it against anything special.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 7:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's fair as long as you give him credit for what he did do

And yes the offense could have moved the ball better, Rex could have not mad the bad pic, Benson could have held on to the ball, our defense could have not fallen down and let run catch the bomb, our D could have changed their strategy at half. There were a lot of reasons that game didn’t go well. Any of those situations being played better could have dramatically changed the game. Only Thomas Jones looked good that day!

He did a lot of good in his first season including the playoffs and had 4 very aweful games. The Super Bowl wasn’t horrible or great.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What do you have to say about the Tampa Bay game?

Are you going back to your “any team can beat any team on any day in the NFL?”

I’m sorry. The AFC is a better conference than the NFC is. If you can’t see that, my friend, I’m done arguing my point with you. The Packers were 8-8 because of the Vikings and the doormat Lions. .500 to .350 is a fair number, but I’ll even meet you at .400.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 7, 2008 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying all the teams were great. The AFC in general is better, but our schedule wasn't a cupcake schedule. Our 2 AFC games were against their best, our two non interdivision games were the Giants and Saints also two of the better teams.

GB wasn’t as bad as people thought they would be before the year, and Seattle and the Rams were solid teams in the West. Arizona gave every team that year a fight to the finish and San Francisco played well all year and struggled in the last 3 games and missed the playoffs. They almost won the division.

Our schedule was solid. It may have not been hard, but it wasn’t super easy like some would have you think. People said that about our schedule before the season started, but after the season was over it was no longer an easy schedule. Those predictions are based on the previous seasons records which don’t always tell the story.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 8, 2008 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it works 60% of the time 100% of the time

If this was prison I would shank you.

by brownbuddha on Aug 10, 2008 2:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

11 were against less than .500, and the games that posted 100 rating or more 6 of the 7 were against .500 or worse. not impressive. 8 of the 10 bolded games were against .500 or worse. 4 were .500. not impressive, or at least as impressive as some people think. i believe we had one of the easiest schedules in the league.

it is important to know who’s fault a pic is, but don’t cherry pick, go through and find out how many td’s were not his doing (bradley jets game for one) either.

i would love for him to get it and be “the guy” but i am not going to pretend that if we give him enough time he’ll figure it out. that’s not always the case.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Green Bay, Jets, & Giants

Pretty friggin good for a guy basically starting for his first year. How many games against winning teams do you think old Aaron in GB will do that against. He has been in the league on the bench for 3 seasons. This is his 4th year and Rex was in his 3rd season when he did it. The Giants and Jets games were back to back away games in NY. That is awesome! And the Giants were super on fire when we played them.

Don’t down play a first year starter doing that. it was pretty remarkable. The bad games were what you should focus on. When he was good, he was very good, especially at his experience level. We don’t dislike Rex for the good games anyways. Hey if he is average in all but 2 games this year, I would say good keep the guy. You know he’ll have a couple good games in there. At this point average or better is a dream compared to what we have experienced or can hope for at this point this season.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh please

How many games against winning teams do you think old Aaron in GB will do that against. He has been in the league on the bench for 3 seasons. This is his 4th year and Rex was in his 3rd season when he did it.

aaron rodgers is irrelevant to this discussion, what he does means nothing to Rex.

When he was good, he was very good, especially at his experience level

he was excellent at beating up on bad teams. his problem is the horrible decision: back of the end zone passes in coverage thrown against the buffalo bills for touchdowns get picked off against good teams. he played the same way against everyone that year, and started last year like that. then he came back from the benching and played the orton game, which isn’t his strength.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Aaron Rodgers is relevant because

I feel like Rex is judged more harshly than other young QB’s. Aaron Rodgers has a similar number of years in the league and a few less games, but has low experience but lots of training. Let’s see how he does.

Rex has done fine in my opinion for his level of experience. This is his season that he has to be the final judgment for the Bears, not 2006 and not 2007. Man in 2007 Griese threw so many end zone picks. He stunk in the red zone.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 8:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

eli manning caught his share of shit

Aaron Rodgers has a similar number of years in the league and a few less games, but has low experience but lots of training. Let’s see how he does.

won’t do much to help the bears week in and week out.

i don’t hav a probelm with rex getting his three years, that used to be the norm,

he’s too short and injury prone. yipee.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree he is short and injury prone and that he deserves 3 years.

I’m not sure if he is too short, but I’m sure it is a hindrance. Doug Flutie looked pretty outstanding at the end of his career in Buffalo and San Diego I’m sure there are some other good shorter QB’s. Rex is definitely taller than Flutie. Why am I talking about that, I have no idea. I think he can play at his height but needs to master other skills like, ball control, checking down, eluding the rush, and not fumbling. I think all of them he still can learn.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

his jump throw

into trips against the dallas was about all i need to see anymore as far height.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can't recall that one. Not on purpose, but just don't remember it.

I assume it was bad.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

Maybe he was “starting” his first year, but he was around the program for three years up until that point. While the OC’s changed guard, the head coach stayed the same.

The difference between Aaron Rodgers and Rex Grossman is between the Earth and moon:
1) He’s been in the system for three years under the same OC
2) He’s been in the system for three years under a franchise QB, which has taught him a ton of knowledge about the game
3) He’s been in the system for three years and able to progress slowly if he wished. It wasn’t like Favre was getting hurt every week.

If Rodgers isn’t successful, it’s not as though he doesn’t has the talent around him. Grossman isn’t successful because he lacks the skills to be effective. He’s short, he’s turnover-prone, and he makes poor decisions. Caleb Hanie made better decisions tonight than Grossman ever will; granted, it was against a 3rd-string defense, but I about shit myself watching Hanie move the ball.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 7, 2008 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The opponents were not the top teams in the NFL during the 2006 season

No doubt about that. But doing great against bad team doesn’t mean you can disregard that game. I have known plenty of bad quarterbacks who were still just as terrible against bad teams (see Joey Harrington, Akili Smith, etc). This is the NFL and all the teams have world class athlettes who are starting and being paid for a reason. Some defenses are much better then others but there are still 11 people on that defense who were able to make it to the highest tier of football and start.

But…during the 2007 season he played great against the Giants, the Seahawks and the Broncos, which were not bad teams and all three had very strong defenses. One of them even won the Super Bowl.

by californiabearfan on Aug 7, 2008 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

great?

I’m not disregarding those games, I am calling them for what they were.

But…during the 2007 season he played great against the Giants, the Seahawks and the Broncos, which were not bad teams and all three had very strong defenses. One of them even won the Super Bowl

come on man, he didn’t play great. two circus berrian catches in the denver game (if you’re going to talk about droped passes need to talk about receivers aving his ass), his fumble ended the seahawks game (he had a high completion percentage, no TDsor picks). that’s not great.

also, you include the oakland game (14 attempts) but not the washington game (6). what a coincidence he had a touchdown in the oakland game that you included.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you're talking about Grossman's TD to Berrian in the back corner,

that was an excellent throw, a tough catch, but a great throw too. He put it where the defender didn’t have a chance, but that his guy could make a play.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lot more berrina than

grossman on that.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My mistake on the Raiders game

You are right mike b about the Redskins game, I should have included it with the Raiders game. I forgot that he did not play the entire game against the Raiders. But at the same time, I believe he had more of a chance to make an impact in the Raiders game then the Redskins game. Didn’t he get injured in the second series or so against the Redskins?

by californiabearfan on Aug 8, 2008 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, it was still the first half and I think the second series.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 8, 2008 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

But he’s only worth one more shot, for all the reasons said by ChiFan. He’s had a lot of time, maybe it is bad coaching (I agree that Turner sucks) but if he can’t get it together this year then its not worth it any more.

Bold Prediction: Orton will be the starter in week 1.

by GallopingGhost on Aug 7, 2008 4:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Green Bay, Jets, & Giants

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 6:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This is also a great discussion and lots of info. I recommended it.

Hey WCG, could we shorten the article about 10 things and put part on the home page and then click on it to see the whole thing?

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 6:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Great post

I’m also a Rex sympathizer. He’s certainly not a great QB, but I wholeheartedly think he’s a better option that Orton. Consequently, I think he needs to show significant improvement this year, but if he doesn’t, I think we should still consider keeping him. Why? Assuming he performs better than Orton, I think we should just drop Orton, sign Grossman to another low-ball, year-long contract, pick up a veteran guy, and either draft a QB or develop Caleb Hanie (assuming he actually shows promise…I couldn’t say). In the aforementioned scenario, even if we started someone new to the organization (rookie, newly acquired vet), we’d still have a solid backup in Rex. With QB injuries increasing (remember last year?), it helps to have a dependable back-up that knows the system. Rex could be that guy…. and possibly flourish in that role.

Bear Down, Chicago Bears!

by topdoggkyle on Aug 7, 2008 7:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sorry about all the stats but...

...it seems as though thats how everyone likes to judge him. And the stats really show that he actually hasn’t had that many bad games as people think he has.

The part I don’t understand the most is why everyone has just given up on him and says he is terrible. He isn’t good but not many quarterbacks are with the amount of starts that Grossman has had. He really has played pretty average and thats not bad considering how much experience he has had. Grossman is young, has talent and is better then what we have had in the past and yet we boo him at practice (which is just unbelievable). You look at some of the quarterbacks that were able to get off to quick starts in their career and you will that many of them came into pretty good offenses around them with strong receivers that knew what they were doing and an offensive coordinator that knew how to play to strengths (I am not a big fan of Turner).

And people wanted us to draft another quaterback? And go through the same things for another two or three years? Did anyone really think that Brian Brohm was going to be tossing TDs left and right and leading us to the Super Bowl this year? Or next? Or ever?

Bash him for his fumbles and inconsistency, fine. But understand that that is part of learning the position of quarterback. Inconsistency and fumbles and pocket presense are all things that are learned with experience.

by californiabearfan on Aug 7, 2008 7:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

uhhh

And people wanted us to draft another quaterback? And go through the same things for another two or three years? Did anyone really think that Brian Brohm was going to be tossing TDs left and right and leading us to the Super Bowl this year? Or next? Or ever?

whats the plan now? wait for grosston to be worth something? that may never happen. does anyone thing grosston will be tossing TDs left and right and leading us to the Super Bowl this year? Or next? Or ever? apparenty you do, but you also pick the most favorable numbers to look at. so now next year we’ll get to draft a qb who won’t be good for 2-3 years. instead of drafting him this year and getting him ready one year sooner. great plan.

Inconsistency and fumbles and pocket presense are all things that are learned with experience.

sometimes. you guys do realize that not all players that enter the nfl become something right?

knew how to play to strengths (I am not a big fan of Turner).

what exactly are grossman’s strengths?

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would have definitely drafted a QB...

...if there was one worth choosing. I don’t think any of the quarterbacks that were left for the Bears to choose will amount to much of anything after they picked the areas that were more important.

I agree that some players don’t become something and its possible Grossman doesn’t which is why I said I am not sure he has the drive. Some people (such as Cedric Benson) have the talent but not the drive.

As for your question about what his strengths are, I am unsure as to how to respond to that. I could give you the canned response of “strong arm” but that doesn’t really matter. Tom Brady doesn’t have a good arm and hes a great quarterback. Peyton Manning has a great arm and hes a great quarterback. What really matters is the results that are displayed on the field and when you look at the results he has given, they really aren’t that bad at all. Not that good, but not that bad.

My main point is that he has played well enough to warrant more patience. I think you have some right to doubt his ability to become good, he fumbles a lot and its possible he never gains the confidence in the pocket needed. He also has an attitude that can both be a great attribute or a big flaw. But you can’t just cut and run right away after only 32 starts, especially when he has shown some real ability during those 32 starts.

by californiabearfan on Aug 7, 2008 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

He throws accurate long balls, he throws down the seem very well which is a difficult pass to make, he can get the ball out to the flats quickly, he also has done very well at the end of games that were close like Seattle in the playoffs, the Broncos, last season, New Orleans in the playoffs, and I forget the rest, but most of his mistakes are when we’re down by a lot and he tries to force it, or if he gets rattled.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i won't name every close game he helped lose

but off the top i would say the pats and the seahawks this year.

I meant to say consistent strengths so that probably changes your answer a bit because as far as the strengths you mentioned, i didn’t watch the game tonight yet, but I don’t think any of those have been true since his good 06 games. there is not a pass on the field i think he can make consistently well. his deep balls are only accurate up the middle, everything sideline seems to be out of bounds or short. he CONSTANTLY misses receivers high.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he makes most of the plays more than not,

I will say the pass in the flats was something I saw in his last 3 games of last season before the injury. But they were rockets that were crisp and accurate for those 3 games and I was really impress. He also in those games checked down to the running backs and that made him look ten times better. His seem and fly patterns I think look good 75 percent of the time. There are some over throws, but most are very good. The Pats game was a tough game for Brady as well because of the snow and he played well in the first Seahawks game and didn’t have an good game in the playoff round, but it wasn’t bad Rex either. It was just in the middle. I thought we were fine with him having some games that weren’t great as long as they weren’t aweful. He did drive the field in the 4th to setup a field goal to win that game. To me that is playing clutch because he had to make plays.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 7, 2008 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if he made more than he didn't

he would be the starter.

most of his throws are not very good. i don’t even think its close to that. i guess we’ll see.

by mike b on Aug 7, 2008 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rex!

I’m a Rex fan. Just to get that out of the way.

This whole recurring argument is a bunch of crap, really. The question of whether Rex is “good” or “bad” or “okay” is academic. The fact is that there are no other options currently on the table besides Kyle Orton.

Rex is better than Orton.

End of story.

Now, if Pennington suddenly joins the conversation . . . then we can have a conversation.

by MikeIowa on Aug 8, 2008 1:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Do you think Rex has played enough games to determine whether he can be a solid starter in the NFL for the Bears or any other team?

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 8, 2008 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do you think that talent around him affected his performance and numbers last year?

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 8, 2008 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chad-freakin-Pennington is who you choose to reopen the discussion?

Really?

by tyger1147 on Aug 10, 2008 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

. . . and to use my rating scheme, Id say he’s “okay”.

Though I think it is “crap” to play this game, it is still a fun debate to have. So I’ll bite.

As your second question hints at, it is extremely difficult to evaluate an individual football player’s quality because so much is affected by the performance of his teammates and the quality of the opposition. I don’t study film, and I wouldn’t know what to look for if I did. So . . . hell-if-I-know. But I think it probably did. Especially not having a running game, having a shaky o-line, and bleah receivers.

My gut feeling is that he’s not as good as his best games, but not as bad as his worst. If he has a solid line, a good running game, decent receivers, and doesn’t have to play from behind, then he will look like Tom Brady. He is NOT good enough to carry the time if the line is weak, the running game disappears, or the receivers continue to underwhelm. Then he will look like Bad Rex.

I like his style, though. He lets it all hang out. And he makes a good lightning rod, as he will be blamed for any offensive shortcomings.

by MikeIowa on Aug 8, 2008 3:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

most people would

If he has a solid line, a good running game, decent receivers, and doesn’t have to play from behind, then he will look like Tom Brady

by mike b on Aug 8, 2008 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trent Dilfer, Phillip Rivers, Drew Bledso, Brian Griese, Tarvaris Jackson, Brian Leftwich, & Jon Kitna

Those are a few guys who have never looked anything like Tom Brady and have had seasons with a solid line, good running game and decent receivers.

- Having a solid line is not a hard thing to do, most teams in the league have a solid line.
- Decent receivers is a pretty easy task. Doesn’t take much to be decent.
- Good running game maybe is harder to obtain, but not even close to impossible. Having a solid line almost guarantees an average running game for any back.

Those are very reasonable expectations. Hopefully we have the backs we need and possibly the receivers. Now we just need a line. Why didn’t we do more? I have no idea. Lack of effort in my opinion.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 8, 2008 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

now name every quarterback who has ever looked good

behind a good team.

by mike b on Aug 8, 2008 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't do it, but the point is a good line and good running game makes a huge difference.

I’m sure I missed many others who were “blessed” with a good line, running game, and ok receivers, but weren’t Tom Brady like.

I think Rex would do better than all of the names I mentioned with that setup. If 2007 had a similar line, he would have shown good improvement. That’s my opinion, but I think he still would have some bad games.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 8, 2008 8:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes it is

I think Rex would do better than all of the names I mentioned with that setup. If 2007 had a similar line, he would have shown good improvement. That’s my opinion,

sure he would have. but he’d still be too short, injury prone, and make bad decisions like he has since he was 18 years old.

by mike b on Aug 8, 2008 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hear you on injury prone, but he could have come back last year.

They kept him out to let Orton play. He probably would have missed 2 games. Just like they kept Griese out to let Rex come back.

Short is an opinion. Isn’t he 6’ 2”, it isn’t like he’s 5’11”. Sure 6’6” is nice, but his height is doable.

Bad decisions. Almost every QB not named Payton or Tom, makes bad decisions throughout the year. I think Rex has severely dropped the amount of poor passes he was making. Yeah, there are some bad ones, but the awful are almost gone, and the bad ones are way down. There will be some bad picks here and there with him but not 3 in one game. I think those days are pretty over. You may see one game a year like that instead of 4.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 9, 2008 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

come on man

don’t tell me short is an opinion (yahoo has him at 6’1’’.i have read everything from 5’11 to 6’1’’ over the years) then say shit like this:

I think Rex has severely dropped the amount of poor passes he was making.There will be some bad picks here and there with him but not 3 in one game. I think those days are pretty over. You may see one game a year like that instead of 4.

you guys want it to be over, but the guy looked borderline servicable at best in those 3 whole games and has not looked better than orton in camp, in fact some of the correspondants have given orton the lead.

by mike b on Aug 9, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't change the fact....

...that a better QB than Grossman WITH A BETTER LINE AND BETTER RUNNING GAME would still be better than Grossman.

If a team has a significantly weak position, you upgrade that position. Don’t upgrade the others and hope it upgrades the weak one.

by tyger1147 on Aug 10, 2008 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand your point, but

I think that Grossman can be somewhere close to what we saw in early 06 with a better line and running game. I don’t think the crap left overs from Tampa, the Jets, Buffalo, Oakland, or whatever team that is letting loose of QB’s is going to be better than Grossman with some solid parts. Finding a guy that has upside at QB is not easy and drafting one appears even tougher. You draft a guy and it take 3 years to know very much and half of the guys or more are crap! If we get a top 10 pick then sure, but othere than that good QB’s are hard to find. I would only take may 10-12 QB’s in this league and say they are good. The rest are serviceable at best. Rex has the chance to be in the 10-12 range with some parts, imo.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 11, 2008 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No he doesn't.

He has the chance to be slightly worse than average. I can’t believe how mesmerized people are w/ the long bomb. The guy has one really good skill (that was amplified by the abilities of Berrian). Other than that, he just doesn’t have one QB skill that would even be considered average.

by tyger1147 on Aug 11, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He has also put together some game winning drives

for TD’s and field goals and has thrown excellent seam routes and also has made some very good TD passes in the Red Zone. We all agree where he is weak, but some of us don’t give him credit for the outstanding passes to Dez Clark and Rashied Davis, and back of the end zone passes to Moose and Berrian. The guy makes some very good plays especially when he gets hot. He doesn’t play well win we are down by 2 scores, but I think that he has improved in not taking too many risks when down.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 11, 2008 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess when I'm talking about "abilities"...

...I mean to do the things consistently. Just throw in “that he does consistently” after both times the word “skill” is used. I would assume if he didn’t do those things at all, he wouldn’t have a football team to play for. Compared to me, he has all those skills. Compared to an average starting QB, he has only one that stands out. The rest lag woefully behind.

by tyger1147 on Aug 11, 2008 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Given the ability to get comfortable as a starter, I think you will see those passes become more consistent.

How many guys look consistent after 1 to 2 years starting? Not many. I can think of 5 currently. Brady, Peyton, Carson, Bulger and Rothlesburger.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 11, 2008 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scratch Big Ben, 2 years ago he threw too many picks.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 11, 2008 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

verryone

of those qb’s has had their moments.

and if you’re goiogn to excuse rex for his youth in every other post, why put guys like rivers and jackson on there?

by mike b on Aug 8, 2008 5:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll excuse Rivers because I think he could be very good, but his supporting cast at line and running back are unbelievable.

Jackson hasn’t shown any kind of talent, so I don’t excuse him. He is not a good qb at this level. He has no vision, poor accuracy, and bad decision making. He can scramble, but that’s about it. He’s garbage. If he ever has a good season, it will be because everyone else made him look good.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 8, 2008 8:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He is not a good qb at this level. He has no vision, poor accuracy, and bad decision making.

If he ever has a good season, it will be because everyone else made him look good.

sounds like someone else i know.

by mike b on Aug 8, 2008 8:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In the NFL

You can’t be a starting QB and have a 1 to 1 ratio of good to bad games. 1:1 is bad. 4:1 is good. Inconsistency is part of the definition of being a bad QB. Grossman has all the talent necessary, but for some reason he just can’t put it together.

by bs1220 on Aug 9, 2008 12:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

For some reason. He has had one season. Last year everyone was terrible and no one could have played well.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 9, 2008 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a difference

between playing on a bad team and making awful decisions and looking scared.

by bs1220 on Aug 9, 2008 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

John Elway and Troy Aikman

Two quarterbacks who were not very good out of the gate. John Elway was a cocky gunsligner who made bad decisions and once lined up behind the guard position instead of the center position. It took him a good six seasons to start figuring things out and he eventually became one of the best of all time. What is crazy is that in this “what have you done for me lately” league that has constant media attention, hundreds of talking heads telling you what to think and idiot newspaper writers who have no idea what they are talking about (Jay Marrioti), a quarterback such as John Elway would have been ran out of town before he became one of the best quarterbacks of all time.

Am I saying Rex Grossman is the next John Elway or Troy Aikman? No way we can know at this point. But if the Cowboys and Broncos weren’t patient then they would have both lost out on Hall of Fame quarterbacks.

by californiabearfan on Aug 10, 2008 2:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Also on John Elway...

...they drafted Tommy Maddox finally and sent him a clear message. They still let John Elway start and he never looked back. Maybe with Grossman it might work the same way. John Elway needed a message sent to him to knock some sense in him and start taking things seriously. The competition with Orton might be that for Grossman.

by californiabearfan on Aug 10, 2008 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

won't work because Grossman is scared and short and has already had a year to start and was not the best QB in the league. Dump him quickly. We gave him enough opportunities with our world beaters helping him.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 11, 2008 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or, he just plain sucks.

by tyger1147 on Aug 11, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or because you don't like him. I would hate to see your QB development strategy.

Draft a new one every year and after throwing away 6-7 ok guys and 2 stars, we’ll get lucky and find a Peyton Manning at the number one overall pick. Of course we’ll be drafting number one every year as we start over.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 11, 2008 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or hang on to one guy for 13 years and just continue to blame his surroundings?

Why is there not a medium? Grossman sucks. The Bears gave him time. They don’t have to go the hypothetical extreme you threw out there (which of course is a straw man argument) and draft a QB every year in the first round, but they also shouldn’t stick w/ only one or two guys for ten years and rely on undrafted FA.

They’re not going to draft the next Tom Brady if they never draft another QB.

by tyger1147 on Aug 11, 2008 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 seasons, that's all he's played. I'm only blaming one year. Give the guy a 3 years to play.

We drafted two first rounders and a second rounder in the last 9 years. We have been trying but you have to let guys play a 3 years each. I wish we would have drafted a QB this year, but they didn’t.

You don’t think it matters what kind of talent is around the guy? Every single QB in this league that has a name has talent around him. Every single one. The only one who doesn’t is Vince Young, and people are starting to give up on him. Look at his stats. Not too good.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 11, 2008 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not so sure about that....

Vince Young isn’t the kind of guy you just “give up” on. Unlike Rex, he’s extremely mobile, he’s tall, and he sucks because he has literally no one at WR for him. That’s like playing catch with yourself….you’re not going to increase your completion percentage unless you can throw the ball really really really really high.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 11, 2008 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's got a TE. I wouldn't give up on Vince either, but

some people are starting to lose faith in the guy and it is sad because he has no running game around him or WR’s. When you don’t have pieces around a qb, they will look bad. That is my point and Vince is paying for it.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 11, 2008 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except for the fact

that when/if Vince hits the free agent market, a lot of people are going to be wanting his services as a starting QB. How many teams can you see doing the same for Grossman or Orton?

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 11, 2008 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think a team with a OL would be crazy not to give Gross a shot.

Minnesota may want a QB if Booty isn’t ready after this season. Arizona would be an awesome fit for Rex, but they have a QB. I could see Tampa, Carolina, San Francisco, Buffalo, Kansas City, or Denver giving him a chance to backup or start.

Orton will be a career backup if this doesn’t work. That’s a good job if you ask me, but I don’t know how Orton will feel about it.

Vince Young will get shots because people understand his situation is not conducive for good stats.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 12, 2008 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As a starting quarterback?

You’re actually saying teams throughout the league would be willing to hand the reins over to Rex Grossman?

Vince Young is a much better quarterback than Rex. Yes, he struggled, all early QB’s do. However, he made it to the playoffs without having virtually any (minus Scaife and one could argue for White) weapons on the field for him.

Anyways, I’m done arguing this. Vince is better than Rex. Always has been, always will be.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 12, 2008 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe Rex led his team to the Super Bowl with two good playoff games in a row with virtually no weapons around him

by californiabearfan on Aug 12, 2008 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except that D...

...that threw #8 on its back the whole second half of the season.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 12, 2008 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Titans have a good D as well.

That is why Vince has any shot. Their D doesn’t give up a lot of points.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 12, 2008 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Titans defense is one of the best in the league

Vince Young received credit for a victory against the Texans in 2006 where the defense scored three touchdowns. Vince Youngs stats that game: 7 for 15 for 87 yards and a TD. The Texans still almost won that game because they had the Titans offense completely shut down.

The problem a lot of fans have of their teams is tunnel vision. They look at their own problems and issues but don’t ever look at any other teams problems and issues and see if they are similar. If people did that more often they would see that what is happening is not that abnormal.

by californiabearfan on Aug 12, 2008 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

All teams he would go to, he would either compete for the starting job, or

be a backup that has a good shot to start in the near future from either injury to the starter or lack of performance.

I’m not saying Rex is better than Vince Young. Why did you even make that comment? Show me anywhere I said something like that.

My point was that Vince doesn’t have talent around him and his numbers are poor because of it. I’m saying they are in similar situations and now people are starting to doubt Vince Young because of the numbers which is ridiculous. The guy can play football and the numbers don’t reflect his talent. He just has no weapons. And all QB’s need weapons.

Can someone name me a QB with good stats and a bad OL? It starts with the men up front.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 12, 2008 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

But I can tell you who doesn’t care: me.

Jerry and Lovie brought in “their guy”, Rex Grossman. Just because they’re incompetent to the point of insanity and did not secure a solid offensive line for “their guy” does not mean that they sign him to an 80-year contract. We can’t wait around forever for JA and LS to bring in people to match our porous O-line just so we can finally give Rex “an honest shot.” But, your excuse forever will be that Rex didn’t have any weapons around him, that’s why he sucked.

I'M A MAN! I'M 22!

by ChiFan13 on Aug 12, 2008 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see what you are saying, but I'm not blaming the talent.

I’m just saying, no one could excel with this talent and that some of his judgment is unfair because he has no talent to prove himself with. That’s it. No one plays well with a bad line. They just don’t. So let’s stop saying that he should have played better last year. Really? How? Who does play well under those circumstances? No one.

Has he had enough chances? I think he has had some chances. Definitely 06 he had a good shot, but was pretty inexperienced, imo. Others would say he should have been better. His high turnover games were completely unacceptable and he should have been benched for it, for the rest of the game, but he wasn’t.

Lovie and Jerry and addressing the OL, is not my fault. I don’t excuse it at all. They have shot themselves in the foot and Jerry is going to lose his job if this year doesn’t fix itself at this point. I don’t want an 80 year contract, I just feel like to be fair to any QB you need to put them in at least an ok situation and Rex didn’t get that in season 2 as a starter. He got worse case scenario.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 12, 2008 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vince Young

I could write a whole new post just on Vince Young. When you compare the reaction to him to the reaction to Grossman, its really truly amazing. Vince Young has started 30 games compared to Grossman starting 32. Vince Young’s good game to bad game ratio is terrible, something like 6 good games to 24 bad games. Vince Young in his career has 21 touchdowns and 30 interceptions, which is less touchdowns and more interceptions then Grossman in two less starts.

But what about those highlight reel runs you say? What about those replays ESPN loves to show over and over again? Yes, he is able to create on his own and make plays. But a lot of quarterbacks came into this league that were able to do that and then as defenses get more and more gametape they learn how to stop it. If you take a look at his games in 06 compared to his games in 07, his ability to rush consistently every game diminished.

Grossman hasn’t had much talent at wide receiver or running back. He has only had two full years worth of starts. These are two statements that people love to make as positives for Vince Young in his future.

I am not saying Vince Young is going to be a bad quarterback in this league. But I don’t get why people are patient with him and not with Grossman. I guess what Grossman really needed to do was just bust a crazy highlight reel run that people could watch on youtube over and over again. That would instantly erase the memories of the interceptions (and if you think I am being sarcastic, I am not in the slightest).

by californiabearfan on Aug 12, 2008 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great post.

I like Vince Young, but I agree people are patient with him just like they were patient with Eli Manning who we all know has similar stats to Rex with way better offensive talent. Hugely better!!!!!! Also you could look at Matt Lienart and Jay Cutler. They haven’t looked that great to me, but no one is saying cut those guys loose. Yeah Matt has seen some bench time, but no one would dare say let the guy leave.

Come on you Rex haters. Tell me you want to cut, Eli Manning, Vince Young, Matt Lienart, and Jay Cutler. Or would you rather get these guys more games to develop. All 3 have a better OL than the Bears. Matt has amazing WR’s too and he still is struggling imo.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 12, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Grossman is going to be 28 years old!!!!

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

His age is a fair argument

His issues with injuries and the fact that Dick Jauron refused to start him his rookie year has set him back. He is way behind where he should be at his age. At the same time, there have been quarterbacks who have dominated this league at the age of 34. There are also plenty of cases of late bloomers such as Steve Young and Rich Gannon.

But I would agree it has taken him entirely too long to get to 32 starts. But that is the fault of the Bears organization and injuries.

by californiabearfan on Aug 12, 2008 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Name me a good QB without a good offensive line or WR or RB.

Hmmmmmm, this could be a super long wait.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 11, 2008 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

anyone????

Nope, didn’t think so.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 12, 2008 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jesus fuggin Christ

John Elway went 13-3 in his second seasons and went to 5 Super Bowls. Remove him from this argument.

Troy Aikman played for a 1-15 team his rookie year. Remove him from this argument

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Aug 18, 2008 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you don't care about their stats or early struggles, just how they finished their career. Good point.

No more Grossman posts until after his career is over from you.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 18, 2008 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stats or early struggles?

What more do you want me to say? Elway lead his team to a 13-3 record in his second friggin season? Early struggles…. I think not.

Aikman played his rookie season for the NFL’s WORST team… a 1-15 record. Of course he’s going to struggle early.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Aug 19, 2008 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe Rex Grossman went 13-3 his first full season as a starter

Based on your logic, he would be right on par with John Elway

by californiabearfan on Aug 20, 2008 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wrote this down below... but I'll add it here

Elway went 13-3 in his second season!!!!! Then, he went 11-5 in each of the next two seasons and lost the Super Bowl in his 4th season. He went to 5 Super Bowls overall. Elway carried that Broncos team on his back, to consistently finish with winning records despite never having a real running game until late in his career when Shanahan became coach. And in the handful of years when Denver had a top ranked defense, he took them to the Super Bowl.

Ditto for Aikman, who was the #1 overall pick in ‘89 for the NFL’s worst team. Jimmy Johnson took over that team and completely dismantled it, accumulated draft picks up the wazoo using his “point system”, and started from scratch. They went 1-15 in Aikman’s rookie year! Of course Aikman was going to take time to develop. He was playing on a team full of inexperienced players at nearly every position. By Aikman’s 3rd season, he was in the playoffs… in his 4th season, he won a Super Bowl.

Now, all that being said. I don’t possibly know how Rex Grossman can become a comparison to Elway or Aikman in any type of conversation. Rex has never carried an average/mediocre team on his back for any duration of time, as Elway did for a number of years. And, Rex wasn’t in a situation like Aikman’s, where he was thrown into the fire on the NFL’s worst team in his rookie year…

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Aug 19, 2008 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's talk about Aikman first.

Aikman struggled on a bad team for several years, but eventually he showed what he was made of when the OL got good and he had some experience. I’m just saying that it is worth looking at how great QB’s looked early in their career and then how they finished.

Just because Elway had a good team, didn’t mean that he was the strength of those early teams. In many ways Elway was very mistake prone, but eventually he became a great leader and player.

Guys take time to develop. Some QB’s have to take their lumps before they learn. The difference between these two hall of famers and Rex right now is that in the stage of Rex career when he should be better, the the OL is letting him get creamed. Neither of those two had bad lines.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 19, 2008 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aikman

Was a #1 overall pick… expected to play like a #1 overall pick. And when the team finally became experienced altogether and grew up… they excelled together. There weren’t many doubters of Aikman’s ability, he just had to go through the normal adjustment (with a very bad team).

Elway was also the #1 overall pick. The difference in his situation: he wasn’t playing football for the worst team in the league. The winless Baltimore Colts drafted him #1 overall, but he refused to play for them (much like Eli Manning recently did to San Diego), and was traded to Denver.

Thus, Elway had the luxury of NOT having to play the league’s worst team.

Both QBs played in the Super Bowl in their 4th seasons.

Rex was NOT the #1 overall pick in the draft. And he wasn’t faced with either of these situations. However, he has pretty much always been surrounded with a very good defense, yet has not demonstrated the ability to carry a less than stellar offense on his back.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Aug 20, 2008 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, but all three had many bad games.

The difference was that Elway and Aikman were give time to figure it out, oh and some blocking to throw a ball. I can’t wait for Rex to leave and find a team that can block.

Defense is nice, but it doesn’t make a QB’s stats look good. TD’s and pass completion percentage and low turnovers do. With our schotty WR’s, poor line play, and no running game last year, it is hard to show that you are growing as a QB like the other guys did. This year, unless the line gets miraculously good, Rex won’t look good either. I can’t wait for him to be on another team to show he can throw the ball. Give him receivers and you’re going to see him go to a probowl.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 20, 2008 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You still aren't getting my half of the argument

Aikman and Elway went to Super Bowls in years when their defenses were among the top defenses in the NFL. Defense, as any Bear fan should know, is KEY to winning a championship in the NFL.

The one constant that Rex has had to work with has been a good defense. And the one season he played in the Super Bowl, his defense was a top 3 unit.

You want to talk about schotty WRs, poor line play, and no running game? Geez. Without looking anything up online, name me any of Elway’s WRs or RBs in the Dan Reeves era.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Aug 20, 2008 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rex Grossman played in a Super Bowl in his first season starting, not his 4th

by californiabearfan on Aug 20, 2008 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rex Grossman played in a Super Bowl in his 4th pro season

Same as Elway and Aikman…. regardless of how many games he started prior to that.

I'm not going to even bother trying to update this sig everyday anymore... that's what the standings column on ESPN is for.
Updated on May 25, 2008

by SackMan on Aug 20, 2008 11:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How many games had they played and how many did Rex play?

It does matter. First year starters always struggle with the speed of the game. It is something that can’t be learned from the sidelines. It takes time to get adjusted and be totally comfortable with seeing the schemes develop live and make good decisions. All QB’s have to learn that through game experience. The only thing Rex had was playbook knowledge in his first 2 years. In his 3rd season he went to the Super Bowl.

Kick it to me... I'm open!

by #23 on Aug 21, 2008 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was not comparing Rex Grossman to them

I was simply stating that they were not very good from the start and had the teams not been patient they would have never had the Hall of Fame quarterbacks they became. You actually made some good points towards my argument. One, that their records mean more then actual stats. If that is the case then Rex Grossman should still be our starter. Two, that John Elway led his team to a 13-3 record his second year, something Rex Grossman did his first full year of a starter. Three, Troy Aikman by his 3rd season was a good quarterback. Rex Grossman has had around 1 full season to start and two seasons worth of games in his entire career.

I hate judging quarterbacks by their records though. They get entirely too much credit for victories. There are three parts to each team and within each part there is eleven people who all serve a role. While the quarterback is a very important position there are too many other factors involved to give them “credit” for a victory.

by californiabearfan on Aug 20, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good points FOR my argument...

by californiabearfan on Aug 20, 2008 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's not get carried away

Talking about Rex is too often an all-or-nothing proposition. He’s really not as good or as bad as people on here say most of the time.

Rex will never be Aikman or Elway, different as those quarterbacks are. He throws a very pretty ball, is very good out of the shotgun (although you haven’t seen it in Chicago), is disinterested/ineffective in a short passing game, is short, immobile, and injury-prone.

I don’t really know who you can compare him with. I guess there have been other statues who were great down-the-field passers but couldn’t do much else, but I can’t think of any who were as short as Grossman. My football memory is not long since I’m only in my 20s. He kind of reminds me of Jeff Hostetler, although Rex has a weaker arm but is a little more accurate. Maybe Warren Moon with the Seahawks in his later days could compare, as Rex’s deep balls can be as pretty as Moon’s, although even when old and hobbled Moon had better instincts. I mentioned earlier that Rex offers a similar skill set as Drew Bledsoe did when he was on his last legs with the Bills/Cowboys, although Bledsoe was taller and could see the field better.

What I’m trying to say is that with protection and at least one speedy WR, Rex can be a little above average, but will never be great. He could certainly be a serviceable starter for the right team. That’s not the Bears, and it’s not a bad thing for Rex that he’s not starting this year.

I just had a weird idea: can they trade Rex or some other worthless item for Kellen Clemens? I think the Jets have given up on him, as they were planning to start Chad in front of him before Favre came along.

by uofcdood on Aug 20, 2008 11:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs