Windy City Gridiron: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Cal RB Jahvid Best Seriously Injured, Carted Off Field

Waddle and Silvy Interview Pat Bowlen

Denver Broncos owner Pat Bowlen sat down and chatted with Waddle and Silvy today.  Not a whole lot was discussed, but I did find it interesting that, while he agrees that Chicago got a great QB in Jay Cutler, he is not willing to endorse Kyle Orton yet.

Questioning Cutler’s tools?

“No, no, I think Jay was a very talented quarterback and he’s very early in his career and he has an opportunity to go on and be considered one of the better quarterbacks. So I don’t think there is any doubt in my mind that he has the physical and mental tools to do very well.”

What do you think about what you got in return in Kyle Orton?

“It’s a little early for me to start commenting on stuff like that, so we’ll see. We’re going through some OTAs and you know we’re watching guys throw footballs around. But, we’re a long way away-at least I’m a long way-from making any serious judgment calls on who is going to be good and who isn’t.”

It will definitely be interesting to see how first year head coach Josh McDaniels handles the situation in Denver, and how Pat Bowlen trys to save face in the aftermath of the Cutler nightmare.

If Denver is able to compete in their division, then maybe no harm/no foul.  But if McDaniels stinks up the joint, and Orton doesn't get the job done, I wonder how things will develop in Denver.

Is it strange that Bowlen won't endorse Orton at this point?  Will Chris Simms really have a shot at winning the starting job?

0 recs  |  Comment 122 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

if true

that is clearly sad

Bring back our honey bears...sick and tired of hearing about the dallas cowboy cheerleaders and the bars they go work at when they quit. cold weather + cheerleaders in skimpy outfits = lots of fun

by tomh115 on May 22, 2009 3:15 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't think it's strange that he won't endorse Kyle at this point

after the whole Cutler/Cassell fiasco, I’d actually be surprised if anyone in that organization endorsed any player at any position until after training camp. Even though, I’m an Orton fan, I think the right thing to do is let them compete at this point. This is a new situation for all of them, so there shouldn’t be anything given to anyone.

by BearFan611 on May 22, 2009 3:18 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Not the owners role to endorse Orton at this point

When the time is right, the head coach will name the starting QB. I am a fan as well of Kyle and expect him to win the position.

by rocko1 on May 22, 2009 3:32 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I would not even be talking to anyone.

kinda like hide and see!

If you live in Chicago you are a bears fan, if you move from chicago you stay a bears fan, if you move to chicago you will be a bears fan.

by chi-town on May 22, 2009 4:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Pat Bowlen is a class act!

He has definitely been one of the better owners in the NFL. The Broncos have a very QB savy franchise. They certainly know how to evaluate, draft and develop offensive players. An 8 and 8 season is completely unacceptable in the Mile High City and heads did roll.

by rocko1 on May 22, 2009 8:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I call B.S. on you, rocko1

Pat Bowlen has ‘definitely been one of the better owners in the NFL’? That’s entirely opinion, not fact. You may think so, but you probably think his s**t smells like rosemary-crusted roast beef as well. I lived in Denver for several years, and still have many friends there – and most of them think Bowlen is an idiot, and a drunk, regardless of those two Super Bowls a decade ago.

The Broncos have a very QB savy franchise.

How’s that? Because John Elway held out and didn’t play for the Colts? Wow, great evaluation there. And if you claim they’re QB savvy (notice the two v’s) because they drafted and groomed Jay Cutler, then they’re also idiots for trading him. You can’t have it both ways.

They certainly know how to evaluate, draft and develop offensive players.

Is that why they had grocery-baggers playing at RB last season? Is that why they traded a Pro Bowl QB coming off a 4500-yard season? {p.s. You’re pretty much admitting that their defense has sucked major a$$ for quite a long time with this statement. A good team knows how to evaluate, draft, and develop PLAYERS – not just offensive.}

An 8 and 8 season is completely unacceptable in the Mile High City and heads did roll.

Whatever! The Broncos haven’t done jack squat since Elway, Shanahan, and Terrell Davis were the trifecta, and none of those folks are still with the team, if you haven’t noticed. The Broncos were a long way to go to return to respectibility – and now they have to cover that ground without a top-shelf QB. Good luck with that.

by BullsFanInSeattle on May 22, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gotta side more with BullsFanInSeattle there

From a distance, the things that rocko1stated appeared to be true.

However, a closer examination reveals this:

1. Denver’s done nothing since Elway.
2. Elway struggled until Terrell Davis came aboard (no criticism meant of Elway).
3. Pat Bowlen had a ‘man crush’ on Shanahan and gave him everything he ever wanted.
4. Shanahan’s a great offensive coach who couldn’t put together the players and/or coaches necessary to have a complimentary defense for his offense.
5. Bowlen finally realized that in the decade after Elway, Mike Shanahan has given him exactly ONE playoff victory (against four playoff losses). That’s pathetic.
6. And now, if Cutler thrives AND Josh McDaniels fails, Pat Bowlen is going to look like the biggest horse’s A++ west of the mighty Mississippi.

by GeoMak on May 22, 2009 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good to hear from you GeoMak!

That was a great write up you did on McMahon!
I’ ll stick with my evaluation on Pat Bowlen’s career. He’s in his mid-seventies and rumor has it, there are some medical issues. i believe he’s in the process of handing over the keys in Denver. I like what he’s accomplished over there during his career, but I agree it hasn’t been the greatest since elway.
You brought up an interesting subject regarding the outcome of the trade. I’ve got a hunch that 2009 is not going to be a playoff season for the Bears. That could spell trouble for Jerry and his coaching staff.
Take care

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

A Bears fan

who is able to filter through all of the BS that comes out of Halas Hall.

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 7:54 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Elway struggled until Terrell Davis?

All Elway managed without Terrell Davis was makie it to 3 Superbowls with Dan Reeves as a coach, a mediocre defense, a less than average offensive line and recievers few can still remember the names of.

It took getting the rest of the team and Shanahan as coach to finally get the two wins, but making it to 5 SB games and having won more games than any other QB in history at the time he quit was an accomplishment I don’t think we will see repeated too often. He was a lot more than just the QB on the team with Terrell Davis

Cutler has the abiliity to do that. Whether he will or not is up to him though. But remember, Brian Griese was another pro bowl QB you all got from us too.

Bowlin is a class act who has always done what he percieved to be in the best interests of the team and he has always had only one goal each and every season. Aside from that he has let his coaches coach and his players play and tried to give each what they needed to succeed.

I don’t see that in too many other owners.

"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987

by AlanC on May 23, 2009 2:05 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, you misunderstood what I wrote AlanC

Maybe I phrased it or said it wrong.

I meant the Broncos as a team, struggled to win it all without a great RB until they got TD. They were way too dependent on Elway.

I completely agree with your assessment of Elway.

To me, John Elway was the greatest QB I ever saw play, largely because of what you wrote in your first paragraph.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

I also tend to agree with your assessment about Bowlen. he did, however, give Mike Shanahan too much power for too long and honestly, Shanahan pretty much has underachieved since Elway left.

Bowlen should be credited with not being a meddling owner, but he should have done a better job in setting up his front office.

Not too many HC’s made good GM’s at the same time. Shanahan didn’t.

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed...

The Broncos did struggle to find that combination of passing and running that Shanahan finally brought. It was a feature of the system as well, but Davis was something special.

I have enjoyed watching few players as much as I did Davis. For a guy who wasn’t all that fast, his burst through a hole was amazing.

Like Bowlin relied on Shanahan too much, Shanahan relied on his DC to take care of that side of the ball too much. If the defense was good, he would leave it alone, and if it cost them some games, he would fire the guy.

But as a GM, the aquistion and retention of talent on the defensive side of the ball was always spotty. Not all of their problems were scheme related all the time. These last two years, the lack of talent on defense has almost made it impossible to run any scheme.

"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987

by AlanC on May 23, 2009 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm glad that was cleared up

Like I said, to me, Elway is the best I ever saw. Over Montana and anybody else. That’s just my personal opinion. Anybody is free to disagree with it.

Perhaps you might care to look at my post regarding Mike Shanahan.

It’s the May 22nd, 9:39 post in “The Greatness of Jim McMahon.”
The title of the post is “Here’s my Suggestion.”

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I read that....

I saw your post on Shanahan and I would have to agree with that as well. Shananhan has been one of my all time favorite coaches for a few reasons, not the least of which is the guy can coach.

I think he is less talented as a GM though. I can understand any coach wanting control over who his players are since his job is dependent on them and their performance.

But Shanny made some great FA moves in his first five years and some really lousy ones in the last few. Paring him with a good GM and a really competent DC would make for an awsome combination as long they could all get their egos in the same room together.

I still think that his final nail in the coffin last year was his statement that he would not be changing DCs. Slowick suffered for personnel, but, he made poor decisions as well as to who to put on the field and in schemes. He was out of his element and Shanny’s statements gave us all the feeling that nothing would be changed that needed to be changed.

Sad end to a great run. But the WC offense is his wheelhouse and that is what you guys are trying to run.

"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987

by AlanC on May 23, 2009 12:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

By the way...

I’m a fellow desert dweller. In Tucson though. Good discussion on McMahon. The 85 Bears were the most intimidating team I have ever seen on a field. They destroyed Denver that year in soldier field and I felt every hit Elway took that day!

I think that was the year. I just remember Singleterry living on our side of the line of scrimage.

"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987

by AlanC on May 23, 2009 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That was in 1984.

Their defense was just as intimidating in 84 as in 85.

In 84 McMahon got injured mid-season (against the Raiders) and missed the rest of the year.

That’s a big reason why the Bears lost the NFC Championship game in SF, 23-0. It was Montana against Steve Fuller.

I don’t believe in using injuries as an excuse in football. They do, however, help explain things a litlle.

The next year, in 1985, same two teams on the same field in SF, almost completely different result: Bears 26. Niners 10.

Like I said, though. I LOVED Elway. He’s the best I ever saw.

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree about Elway..

I loved watching every game he played in. I didn’t figure I would ever see the like of that again.

But I loved your article on McMahon as well. The common denominator is guys who HATE to lose…. at anything!

Its the one thing that is probably shared by all great players and great coaches. Within our frames of common reference, it applies to Elway, McMahon, Butkis, Ditka, Reeves, and Shanahan. You can see it in their eyes, all the time. They play to win, period.

I was just starting to watch pro ball when Ditka was playing tight end for the Bears. I was fascinated watching the intensity he played with. Carrying the ball in one hand and daring anyone to try and hit him. He was a classic.

"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987

by AlanC on May 23, 2009 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

normally, i don't correct anybody's spelling but...

B-U-T-K-U-S!!! sorry but he is one of my favorites, i couldn’t let that go…

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I saw that..

after I posted it but they don’t let you do edits here. Sorry man. I will have to be more careful.

"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987

by AlanC on May 23, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I knew Butkus was a player

when I saw him in the old college all-star game they played against the Packers and he met Taylor in the hole and drove him into the backfield. It was one of the strongest plays I ever saw from a guy who hadn’t even played a pro game yet. One of the best ever.

"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987

by AlanC on May 23, 2009 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Three Amigos

But… like you said… I couldn’t tell you their names. LOL.

"You win because of the quarterback. We have to get that position stabilized. We're fixated on that." -- Jerry Angelo (12.30.2008)

Jerry Angelo trades for Jay Cutler! (4.2.2009)
.

by SackMan on May 23, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Mark Jackson, Ricky Natiel, and I can’t name the other guy without cheating.

by rdent4hof on May 23, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yep...

Jackson was slower, but solid hands, Natiel was faster but couldn’t catch, the “Vance” was any of the above on any given Sunday. Rick Upchurch was another in the mix that was a terrific punt and kick returner, but he had trouble running routes and catching the ball too.

Later Steve Watson was added into the mix. Tall, sneaky slow, solid possession reciever.

"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987

by AlanC on May 23, 2009 2:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

once again GeoMak, you throw around wild accusations without looking at facts

number 2 is bullshit. 3 superbowl appearances, multiple probowls, and Elway struggled? Really?
number 4 is wrong as well: here’s the Broncos yearly defensive rankings during Shanahans tenure as coach
2008:29th
2007:19th
2006:14th
2005:15th
2004:4th
2003:4th
2002:6th
2001:8th
2000:24th
1999:7th
1998:11th
1997:5th
1996:4th
1995:15th
so let’s sum this up shall we; 7 out of his 14 seasons as broncos head coach, he had them in the top ten, top five four seasons, and top fifteen eleven seasons.

So really, how can you sit there and write that Shannahan never had a complimentary Defense for his Offense when they have been one of the best defensive teams during his tenure?

I can’t wait to see your response.

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 23, 2009 6:54 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, Ifuwanna

I (hopefully) cleared up the misunderstanding regarding #2 with my comment above. I should have said that the Broncos have struggled (and not Elway).

As far as the defense goes:

A). I never said that he never had a good defense there. I said this:

who couldn’t put together the players and/or coaches necessary to have a complimentary defense for his offense.

Look at your stats: In the three years with Jay Cutler the defense ranked:

2006 – 14th
2007 – 19th
2008 – 29th

That’s what I meant. That’s the very definition of not having a complimentary defense.
When he had his best QB after Elway he had a defense ranked from the middle on down.

B). Defensive rankings (like offensive rankings) are based on yardage and points. Both important to be sure, but they don’t explain ‘situational’ football like 3rd downs and takeaways.

In 1992 the Houston Oilers were ranked 9th in team defense. In 1993 4th.
Both top ten finishes. And here’s the difference.

In 1992 the Oilers blew a 32 point lead against the Bills in the playoffs. No team has ever choked worse than that in the playoffs. They fired their DC after that and Buddy Ryan came aboard the next year.

After starting out slowly in 1993 (1-4…..Buddy’s defenses usually started out slowly) they won their last 11 games to make the playoffs.

Under Buddy Ryan in 1993 (as compared to the team in 1992) the Oilers gave up 20 LESS points but 663 MORE yards.

Kind of meaningless to me: They gave up 41 more yards per game and a little over 1 point per game less.

Buddy always said that things like stopping a team on 3rd down and taking the ball away were much more important than a few yards here and a few points there, which is what the rankings are based on.

And also what’s important is this: Protecting the lead at the end of the game (witness Bear losses last year against Atlanta, TB & Carolina).

Just looking at the rankings really doesn’t even begin to tell the whole story.

For the most part, the defense under Shanahan has been his teams weak link. Not his offense.

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

what?
Defensive rankings (like offensive rankings) are based on yardage and points. Both important to be sure, but they don’t explain ‘situational’ football like 3rd downs and takeaways.

for somebody that’s been watching football as long as you, I expected you to know that wherever a defense ranks is based on everything; yardage, points, 3rd down conversions, 4th down conversions, 5th down conversions, whatever. Less yardage=less 3rd down conversions. show me a team thats defense ranked in the top 5 but not in the top ten for 3rd down conversions. I guarantee you you’ll be wasting your time looking.

Singling out one Game(Houston-Buffalo) is meaningless, hence the phrase “any give sunday”. the ’85 patriots had a 7th ranked defense, and gave up 46 points to the bears in the superbowl. One game is not an indicator of how good/bad a team is on one side of the ball.

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 23, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, they are not

The rankings are first by points allowed. Then comes yardage.

When people cite things like “The Steelers were ranked #1 in defense in 2008” they are talking about points allowed.

The (rare) trifecta is in having the least points allowed along with the least rushing yardage and least passing yardage allowed.

What you are failing to understand is that those things (points and yardage) are what is used for the rankings and they don’t take into account the things like Buddy Ryan said (3rd down conversions, takeaways, protecting leads).

Yes there are rankings for every stat there is (like 33rd down conversions) but there is no way to rank all the teams using ALL the stats. There are simply way too many variables for that.

I am going by the overall rankings for team defense.

According to that, Denver ranked

30th in 2008
28th in 2007
  8th in 2006

Where are you getting your stats?

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, they are. I get my stats from NFL.com

and the ranking are determined by total yards allowed, not points.

What you are failing to understand is that those things (points and yardage) are what is used for the rankings and they don’t take into account the things like Buddy Ryan said (3rd down conversions, takeaways, protecting leads).

As I said Before:

show me a team thats defense ranked in the top 5 but not in the top ten for 3rd down conversions.

third down conversions? in case you didn’t know, offenses can convert on first, second, and even fourth downs. A team can rank high on third downs, but what about the other downs? It’s a moot point, which is why it’s a insignificant stat.

Protecting leads? what a crock! so in essence, you’re saying a team could win 48-41 and the defense is still good because they “protected the lead”?

Takeaways? the Cleveland Browns and Chicago Bears were in the top 5 for takeaways, and still ranked 26th and 21st in total defense. so why are these stats not “taken into account”?

I’ll tell you why. Because yards and points allowed are what really matters on defense. there’s no chicken and egg argument to this. If a team is putting up points on your defense, and racking up yards on your defense, then obviously third down stoppage(which, just so you’d know, the Bears were ranked sixth) and takeaways aren’t helping at all.

what is the fundamental meaning of defense in football? Repeat after me: To keep the other team from scoring.

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 23, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Look

Teams are generally ranked in this order:

Points and then yardage.

That’s just the way NFL.com does it ( by yardage). You can look it up by points if you want to.

The site I use starts with points and then goes to yardage.

Either way, those two (points against and yardage against) are the two criteria used first for ranking defense.

Less yardage should yield less points, and points are the name of the game.

I AM NOT disagreeing with this. At all. Thats’s common sense

You still fail to understand something and I can’t spend all day trying to explain it to you:

Football is a game of ‘situations.’

Just looking at a ranking doesn’t tell the whole story. It helps, but doesn’t tell it all.

Key stats like stopping teams on 3rd down, taking the ball away from the offense and protecting a lead tell an important story too.

I’ll repeat. The 1992 Oilers were a top ten defense. Thats sounds pretty good. They gave up the 10th fewest points. And the DC got fired because he couldn’t protect a 32 point lead in the playoffs.

In 2008, the Bears couldn’t protect leads in three games and it cost them the playoffs.

You started this by giving a long list about how Denver wasn’t so bad and I told you that with Cutler, they weren’t very good on defense.

That’s all I was saying.

You are saying that points allowed and yards allowed are all that matters. I (and Buddy Ryan) would disagree.

The ability to take the ball away in key situations is huge. To stop a team on a 3rd down. To protect a lead.

Please don’t say stupid things like this: what is the fundamental meaning of defense in football? Repeat after me: To keep the other team from scoring.

That’s stating the obvious.

Look the 1986 Bears (under Vince Tobin) gave up 11 points LESS than the 85 Bears under Buddy Ryan.

And what happened? Unlike the 85 Bears who dominated in the playoffs, the 86 Bears gave up 27 points to the Redskins, as they lost their only playoff game that year.

Why?

In large part because they weren’t able to generate the heat and pressure like they did under Buddy Ryan (so said, among others, Otis Wilson).

The 86 team gave up less points than the 85 team and got their ass kicked in the playoffs.

You can’t tell the whole story by looking at any one stat line.

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

We're going way off track, So try to keep in line, shall we?
You started this by giving a long list about how Denver wasn’t so bad and I told you that with Cutler, they weren’t very good on defense.

Oh, but I thought you said.

4. Shanahan’s a great offensive coach who couldn’t put together the players and/or coaches necessary to have a complimentary defense for his offense.

so from never being able to put together a good defense while in Denver, to not having a good defense while Cutler was starter. Really GeoMak, who ya crappin? I’m not getting into logistics of what stats makes a defense great and what doesn’t. none of that matters

BEFORE
points and yards allowed, which is what the basis of every defense rests on.

Either way, those two (points against and yardage against) are the two criteria used first for ranking defense.

Less yardage should yield less points, and points are the name of the game.

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!

Yet you have failed to tell me how Shanahan did not put together a defense that complimented his offense, even though they were ranked in the top ten more often than not. every superbowl winner that relied on their defense more than their offense were are ranked somewhere in the top ten, so what was different with Shany’s?

And no, the ’92 oilers were no excuse. Jim Eddy was fired because he was the scapegoat for, not because the Defense gave up points to the Bills.

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 23, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

What's a Bulls fan doing in Seattle? I like the Bulls too!

I’m sorry you didn’t agree with my opinion of Pat Bowlen. The Broncos have been to the SB four times in the past 20 years, with two championships. That speaks volumes to me. I like what Pat Bowlen has accomplished in Denver. Imo, we need more of that in Chicago. One championship in the past 40 years, is not good enough for this Bears fan. I don’t believe we are anywhere close to the next one either.

by rocko1 on May 22, 2009 10:38 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Actually

They went once in the 70s, 3 time in the 80s and 2 more in the 90s. Now this decade has been a bit thin. Hence, the new coach, GM, players and attitude.

"Now we have them where we want them"
-Kieth Bishop - On the Denver 2 yard line, Cleveland Ohio, 1987

by AlanC on May 23, 2009 2:07 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Correct AlanC

I was wrong. They have been to the SB five times under Bowlen’s ownership and six times in the history of the franchise. A great track record for Bowlen.

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not anywhere close????

I don’t believe we are anywhere close to the next one either.

I’m not sure you know how to properly evaluate NFL teams if you: 1) think Denver got the better of the Culter deal; or 2) think the Bears aren’t anywhere close to another championship.

The Bears went 9-7 last season and narrowly missed the playoffs due to some late-game collapses by an overused defense. The defense was on the field far too long because the offense simply couldn’t sustain drives, and the special teams frequently bailed out both units.

But the Bears remedied that by addressing the most important position in all of sports. Jay Cutler doesn’t have to be an MVP, or necessarily even ‘great’, for the Bears to advance deep into the playoffs. The Bears, for the first time in decades, have a highly-skilled QB-RB-WR trifecta in Cutler, Forte, and Hester. Sure, Hester didn’t light the NFL on fire last year, but 50 recs & 650 yards is pretty darn good for his first real season at the position in his life, especially considering that Orton often had a difficult time hitting him in stride due to Orton’s lack of any real downfield passing ability.

The offensive line has been shored up, and the D-line has a respected new coach. The Bears still have 3 talented players at DE – Brown, Ogunleye, and Anderson – which is one of the most important positions on defense. Lovie has gone back to calling the defense, as well. And the Bears special teams will continue to be special with coach Toub, Robbie Gould kicking, Brad Maynard punting, and Manning and Hester returning.

Combine that with the fact that the NFC North is weak, as is the NFC overall (Arizona Cardinals? Come on.) The Bears have an easy schedule (on paper), and it isn’t difficult at all for me to imagine them gaining one or two games over last season’s record based on the offseason moves alone. That puts them at 10 or 11 wins, and gets them into the playoffs. I can’t think of an NFC team, offhand, that has better talent, better veterans, nor better team speed across the board. Maybe as good, but better?

by BullsFanInSeattle on May 23, 2009 6:38 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Not anywhere close????

I have to agree with BullsFan on this one.

I remember going into last season and I believe everybody would agree thinking that team was a 7-8 win team that would miss the playoffs. I have to tip my cap to the coaching staff, particularly Lovie, for getting the most out of his team. I think I read somewhere that the Bears have one of the best records in the NFC over the last 3-5 years. I hate to admit it but that is due to coaching. NOW… all of a sudden we have Cutler. I think they are now a 8-9 win team that the coaching staff will probably turn into 10-11 wins. Also take into consideration that the Bears have one of the weaker schedules in the NFL, get to play the Lions twice, the Packers (good I agree, but changed their defensive scheme).

*Also… I remember watching a Broncos game at the beginning of last year. I want to say they had the 2nd game of the opening Monday night against the Raiders. I believe that Mike & Mike & Ditka did the game and I remember them commenting on how Cutler only had Brandon Marshall and a patch work running back situation. They were basically saying that Shanahan and Cutler didn’t have a whole lot to work with. 16 games later he totals 4500 yards passing. My point is Cutler turned Royal into a star. Not the other way around. I fully expect him to have a similar situation with one of Bennet or Iglesias. I predict that as long as the offensive line gives Sir Jay time to pick apart defenses Bears fans will be ecstatic this 2009 season.

*Also… I am typically the first one to complain if a defense like ours from last year doesn’t get tuned up over the off-season. Not this time though. The talent is there in my opinion. Now they know that they aren’t going to get burned out by an offense that consistently goes 3 and out. There is going to be a hop in their step. They will be playing on their toes in the 4th quarter. With Marinelli, Lovie calling the defense, and being on the field considerably less I fully expect the Bears D to be among the top 10.

Just my 2 cents

by tripsevens on May 23, 2009 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Anytime I hear that Lovie gets the most out of his team I have to jump in

Lovie is a terrible head coach and how can you say he gets the most out of his team when he misses the playoffs 2 years in a row coming right off of a Super Bowl, that we could have won? The Bears were one of the younger teams in the league, if memory serves, when they went to the Super Bowl and have gone downhill since then. His stubborn attitude toward the Cover 2, keeping Rex in as a starter no matter what, looking like he’s asleep in games, making terrible choices in game situations, and not adjusting to his personnel screams he’s a terrible head coach. Tell me what players have really developed under Lovie? I mean players that you can say have improved their performance year in and year out under this regime. Rivera had the defense playing as an aggressive unit where players were accountable and Lovie couldn’t stand the credit he was getting, so he replaced him with his BFF and resident doorstop, Bob Babich and we’ve sucked ever since. The media has given him a pass because he and Dungy were in a Super Bowl as the first African American head coaches, so he is now “immortal”. Before anyone screams at me for saying that, let me say that I would love to have a Mike Tomlin, MIke Singletary, or even Herm Edwards as head coach of the Bears since they are intense, and don’t try to make their teams a country club for the players. Lovie is a coordinator, at best, same as Wanny and Jauron. Head coaches have to be someone who commands respect despite what the popular or political decisions might be. They should be like a good “Dad”, you love him, repsect him, and you do have a little fear as well. Lovie is a doormat

by BearFan611 on May 23, 2009 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

BearFan you hit the nail on the head!

Angelo, Smith, Turner, and Babich are all cut from the same cloth. We deserve better in Chicago. Nice post!

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

You are correct about pretty much everything you say there, BearFan611. I have pretty much stopped saying it because it just pisses most people off.

The biggest mistake the McCaskeys made was in not hiring one of the all-time great Bears, Mike Singletary, when he went to them for a job in 2002. Pure stupidity.

He has completely turned around the losing attitude in SF, starting from his first game. Lovie’s a ‘soft coach’ and soft coaches usually don’t win in the NFL.

The main reason they even went to the SB in 2006 was because of Devin Hester. He singlehandedly won two games (Denver & the Rams) and was a key factor in other games (like GB & Arizona).

They caught lightening-in-a-bottle with Hester, and they haven’t done anything since his incredible rookie season.

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Amen GeoMak!

Your are on the money about Hester and 2006.

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

the biggest mistake...

is the mccaskeys!!! fruit of the poisonous tree, my friends… and bearfan611, with the exception of the cover 2 comment, which was vague, the choir was singing right along with you… and geo, you forgot to mention another game hester was a key factor in… the SB. god, it still turns my stomach thinking about that day!!!! what time is it? i think i’m gonna need a drink!

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, I didn't forget

As I always say, in the first quarter Hester had his TD and Grossman hit Muhammad for a TD. That’s 14 points. The Bears are only one of, I think, four teams to score 14 first quarter points in the SB (The 85 Bears scored 13).

No team in the history of the SB has come back from a 14 point deficit. The Colts would have had to do something that had never been done in SB history.

Only problem? The Bears never had a 14 point lead, due to Manning’s boneheaded play which gave them Reggie Wayne’s easy TD. Instead of 14-0 it was 14-6 (due to the missed PAT).

I blame Manning’s stupid play and a Bear defense that gave up almost 200 yards of rushing for that loss. More so than Rex and the offense.

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because I have tried to block it from my memory I may be a little off

From what I remember, I knew that the Bears were hosed in the first quarter after Hester ran back the opening kickoff, then Manning threw and interception but the Bear offense couldn’t even make a first down which would have at least given them a field goal and a minimum of 10-0. I remember telling the friends I was watching the game with that the game was over right then because if they couldn’t take advantage of those 2 huge plays there was no way they would win the game. They would have put Indy in a huge hole and been able to take them out of their game plan early.

by BearFan611 on May 23, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i said it before, i'll say it again...

at halftime, rex went into the indy lockeroom and signed a 2 quarter contract with them… btw, who let’s cheese heads post blogs in here??? i’m sure you two would enjoy taking a break from this post to chime in… i was easy on him, only because i expect the “junkyard dogs” of this site to tear him up like a piece o raw meat!!! good hunting boys… and always a pleasure to read your posts…

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

After the Hester TD

The Colts came out. Had something like two false starts and then Peyton threw and INT. Pretty bad start for Indy.

The Bears struggled on offense (as did the great Peyton Manning).

At 10:26 of the first quarter, Rex hit Mushin M. for that TD.

We scored 14 points in less than 11 minutes. Pretty good. One due to Hester. One due to Rex and the offense.

Like I said, only a few other teams have ever scored 14 first quarter points in the SB.

UNFORTUNATELY, two minutes before Rex threw his TD, the Colts scored on a 53 yard TD when Danieal Manning got confused as to if the Bears were in zone or man coverage.

That play was a KILLER.

Bottom line: The Colts obviously had an edge at QB with Manning over Rex. Peyton over almost anybody not named Tom Brady gave INDY the edge there.

Anybody that didn’t know or understand that is stupid.

When a team (like the Bears) gives up 191 yards of rushing (like they did that day) they almost always lose.

Even without a stupid boneheaded play (like leaving Reggie Wayne WIDE open for an easy TD).

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

oh the pain!!!!

and they keep showing it on NFL network, as if to personally taunt me, those bastards!!! liked the comment about peyton, that gave me a much needed laugh whilst reading your play-by-play. very strategic to place it in the middle of your post, right as i was about to dive right right out my window yelling “goodbye cruel world!!!!!”

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're right

bottom line is, it was a very winnable game but the Bears just didn’t have the killer instinct to take it. That’s my biggest problem with Lovie. I don’t feel that Dungy has it either, but Peyton Manning was enough of an edge to get him his Super Bowl win.

by BearFan611 on May 23, 2009 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

You had two nice-guy coaches. One of them had to win.

I totally respect Tony Dungy as a person. And he’s a good coach.
But he had to leave TB and a tough guy (Gruden) had to take them to the top the next year.

Even Warren Sapp, who loves Tony Dungy, has said that Dungy was too easy going with the offense down in Tampa.

In Indy, to me, they have underachieved. With one of the game’s greatest QB’s they have only won one SB (and lost a lot of playoff/AFC Championship games).

All I know is that when you watch that SB, the Colts ‘dinked and dunked’ the Bears to death. Running the ball and throwing almost exclusively short passes or dumpoff passes, they controlled the game.

Outside of that broken play to R. Wayne, the longest passes were 22 yards to Harrison and 17 yards to Dallas Clark.

Take away Wayne’s 53 yards courtesy of Danieal Manning, and he had only EIGHT yards receiving. EIGHT YARDS!

The second best WR on the team: EIGHT YARDS!
Marvin Harrison had 59 yards.
Dallas Clark had 36 yards.

Take away that busted play and the two WR’s and one TE had 103 yards receiving.

The Bears couldn’t stop the run and couldn’t stop the dumpoff passing game.

RB Joesph Addai had 10 receptions for 66 yards.
That’s 7 more yards than Marvin Harrison.
That’s only one less reception that Harrison, Wayne and Clark combined!

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i guess they took their cue

from everybody else that destroyed us with that short pass, slant throw.

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're 100% right!!

The guy to me that never caught proper hell for the SB loss was Daniel Manning. I’ve never cared for him. Whenever you see a blown play, prepare to see Daniel Manning come into the picture 4-5 seconds after the play has happened. I’ve always said that if Mike Brown plays in the SB, we’re Champs. Everything changed with that blown play by Manning.

by Dils on May 23, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes it was a blown play...

but don’t you think you’re being a little hard on the kid? a D-II kid in his second year who avg 75 tackles and two picks a season up to that point? and as much as i LOVE mike brown(dated a girl from neb who turned me onto him early), i’d take a healthy manning over an ailing brown any day… which btw, i hope he finds work soon, it’s killin me inside that he’s no longer in a bear uniform. i worded that carefully cuz he will always be a bear to me. he represented everything that i love about the bears!!!! > excuse me, i’m going to need a moment.

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think so

If Manning was so good, he wouldn’t be yanked all over the field. He blows plays and the coaches kmow it. Remember, this was a guy taken in the second round, before Hester. The Bears just can’t give up on him yet. Plus the fact that he is versitle helps him a little. But compared to everyone blaming Rex and Ron Turner’s game plan, he never caught enough blame for that moment. Geo is 100% right.

by Dils on May 23, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He did it again last year

in the last game against Houston when he let Andre Johnson walk into the endzone with a TD.

That play in the SB changed everything. If he had just gotten beaten by Wayne on the play, that wouldn’t have bothered me. DB’s get beaten all the time.

But because you were confused by your OWN team’s coverage?

That’s inexcusable.

The average fan, all over the world, has crucified Rex Grossman in that SB. And most of those people don’t even know Danieal Manning’s name.

That’s F++KED up.

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

LMAO!!!

you got me there… i had to stop laughing to type this… when you word it like that, it seems so……….hmmm……. correct.

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

i didn't say i was wrong...

i just said you were correct… did i lose the respect or can i still get some love???

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

What part got you to laugh?

Was it this line:

But because you were confused by your OWN team’s coverage?

Because that is pretty funny, now that I look at it.

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

laughing again!!!

absolutely!!! that one is going into the momory banks as something i will be able to pull out at a later time, in a different game, against another fan from an opposing team… confused by your own coverage… that’s an instant classic!!! somebody get Steve Sabol on the line!!!

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I saw it on Jeopardy one night

Category: DumbAsses for $500.

Answer: Who once famously said: “I usually know the coverage we’re in . . . but sometimes I forget.”

Question: “Who is Danieal Manning?”

We have a WINNER!

by GeoMak on May 23, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your argument is laughable

A. How about the offense couldn’t get back on the field because the defense couldn’t tackle or cover anyone. They were horrible last year and couldn’t stop anyone when it counted. Three 4th quarter collapses and then the grand finale in Houston where they stunk up the entire NFL. How about the Atlanta game> Orton plays his azz off and puts the Bears ahead with 11 seconds to go. How do you lose with 11 second left? Bad coaching and horrible defense! How about the Tampa game. Brian Griese of all Qbs cuts the Bears defense to shreds. then there’s the Carolina game – another blown lead. The list goes on and on. The fact is, the defense has seen its’ better days and needs to be re-built. Their pathetic rankings in 2007 and 2008 are fact not fiction. Top to bottom the defense needs to be rebuilt. Start with defensive lineman who can actually get to the QB, linebackers who can tackle, and defensive backs that can cover anyone and tackle.
B. The offensive line has been shored up? With what rotten timber? Orlando Pace is over the hill. Williams hasn’t played a down in the NFL and has back issues. another great Angelo 1st round draft piece of crap. Yes the offensive line is just filled to the brim with future pro bowlers. Not!!
C. then there is Jay Cutler. Just exactly what has he accomplished in the NFL to justify two 1st rounders, a 3rd, and kyle Orton. Asnwer – Nothing! He was the 16th rated passer in the NFL last year. Let me repeat – The 16th rated QB last year! Hasn’t had a winning record since high school. Stinks in the red-zone. Denver scored three points last year in 17 2-minute possessions. Denver’s points/game were similar to the Bears last year. He has leadership issues. What will happen in chicago with inferior WRs, a pourous offensive line, a less productive running game, and oh yes Ron turner’s offensive scheme. Turner is without a doubt the worst OC in the NFL.
D. Kyle Orton’s play wasn’t the issue last year for the Bears. He was arguably the team MVP. It was the Defense! Orton is only 26 and has just as much upside as Cutler. He was better in college, has a better winning percentage in the NFL, wins the IQ contest hands down against Cutler every time, much better leadership skills, and HE WINS. I want to see how Kyle performs in a 21st century offensive scheme, with receivers who can run pass routes correctly, get open, and actually catch the ball. I want to see how much his passer ratings improve when he actually has time to throw the ball to Denver’s great receivers. You know, the important things a Qb needs to perform at a high level. If his play at Purdue in Joe Tiller’s spread offense is any indication, he will outperform Cutler in 2009.

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If his play at Purdue in Joe Tiller’s spread offense is any indication, he will outperform Cutler in 2009.

…if we go back to playing a spread offense in college, very possibly. Now, I know the NFL are considering some changes – a Superbowl in London, extending the regular season by two games – but last I heard, this wasn’t the plan.

As for the rest of your rant… yeah, yeah, we get it. The Bears suck. Are you one of those bitter Broncos fans who came here after the Cutler trade?

by Spongie on May 23, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

What's you're point

I’m a long time Bears fan.
I dislike Smith, Angelo, Turner, etc.
I’m new to the site.
The Broncos will run the Patriots’ style spread offense under Josh McDaniels.
Did something happen to you as a child?

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Did something happen to you as a child?

Yes. I went to school, paid attention, and was taught the difference between “your” and “you’re”. It’s caused me much mental anguish ever since.

When Orton and Cutler return to the college game and the former outperforms the latter, you can do the happy underpants dance all you like. Until then, let’s see what happens over the next couple of seasons.

by Spongie on May 23, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

wrecked

Best. Counter. Ever

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 23, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Spongie says it all

Did your mom help you pick that out. you probably still live with her. You can’t be over 25 that’s a given. I havn’t seen one gram of substance that has come off your keyboard since I started posting. Not one! Anytime you are ready, please proceed. You are nothing more than a child with some very deep issues. I know it and so do you.

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 10:51 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's not my style Spongie

Let’s try to keep it respectful.

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

ya know???

that thought has crossed my mind a few times while i’m reading his posts.

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh Rocko...(SMH)

I know Orton went to Purdue OK. I get it. And I know he has improved in this league. But even with all of that… He’s average. You do realize that Jay Cutler almost did in one season what Orton has done in his WHOLE career right? I mean come on. I thought the O-line was pretty good last year if you ask me. As far as recievers go, why don’t you ever give credit to a 3 year QB making youg recievers better? I mean has Eddie Royal and Brandon Marshall played with to show you that they are as good without Cutler? Oh and it just so happen that their TE Scheffler is good as well.

This is no longer about ratings and stats, it’s about what your eyes can see. I’ve seen games where Cutler made throws in one 2 minute drive that Orton hasn’t made his whole career. And I’ve seen a streaking Hester, 2 steps behind his defender, that Orton couldn’t hit. Orton is average, possibly mediocre OK. Until he shows anyone otherwise, that’s what he is. Cutler is a 26 year old pro bowler OK. Until he shows otherwise, that’s what he is.

by Dils on May 23, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And by the way...

I like to think the guy Orton depened on most because he couldn’t get the ball downfield was the MVP. You know the guy who caught all those RAC yards, padding Orton’s pedestrian stats while still managing to lead his team in rushing. Matt Forte

by Dils on May 23, 2009 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh Dils didn't we do this at MHR

I have to run, but will be back later on tonight to defend. Have you finally stopped crying about Rex?
Later

by rocko1 on May 23, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

how???

his statement about forte is DEAD ON!!! when your RB has the most catches on the team, you have to question the passing game… and unfrotunately, as QB, that falls right in your lap. i actually like orton… what was not to like? quick question, why were two bear fans going mano a mano over at mile high? seriously dude, are you REALLY a bear fan??? football speak is football speak, and i respect anybody who can bring it no matter what team they like. with that being said, you back up your words pretty well, but with a real negative “feel” towards the team, hence the loyalty being questioned.

by windycity72 on May 23, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll tell you why Windy...

Because my buddy Rocko loves Orton and is always over there explaining how Orton will be great for Denver. I was over there because I am curious how a fan base whose team gave away a young probowl QB is coping. Unfortunately Rocko is over there selling dreams to those fans making Orton out to be the next Ben Rothlisberger and I just couldn’t have that so we started sparring over Orton and his talent. Because fans there are curious who this Orton guy is and I can’t let them walk away thinking they robbed the Bears in that trade.

by Dils on May 23, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hey, be fair

Rocko might be a she (though I doubt it), and this might not be an unrequited mancrush that we’re seeing here (though we all know it is…) ;-)

by Spongie on May 23, 2009 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe

Forte was the only receiver open. Maybe Orton took what he could get before he was sacked. It’s a complicated question and the answer would depend on the breakdown of each play. Given the pourous nature of the line and the fact that Orton was working with the worst group of wide receivers in the league, it probably was a combination of both.
I have lived in Chi-town a long time and love the Bears. We have won one frigin championship in the Super Bowl era. We’ve had only one dominating team which is the 85 Bears(83 through 88?). That simply is not good enough! I have an extremely low opinion of ownership, Angelo, and the current coaching staff. I love the players and the trade is what it is. The trade is done and I will embrace Jay Cutler. I will also continue to bitch until changes are made at Halas Hall.
As a Purdue grad, I am a fan of Kyle Orton. That’s why I’ve been over a Mile High. i like the site and the discussion is very good. I will be cheering the Broncos and Orton on while he plays for the team.

by rocko1 on May 24, 2009 12:35 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Just one more Rex point...

If I was you I’d stop bringing up Orton’s college career because you do realize that Rex Grossman was the better college QB right? Runner-up to the Heisman? I’m just saying:)

by Dils on May 23, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You don't want to go to Grossman's college record

Orton’s last year at Purdue: 31 tds and 5 ints(He missed a month due to injuries)
Grossman’s last year at Florida: 22 tds and 17 ints.
I’ll let the stats do the talking. Orton was the leading candidate for the Heisman until he was injured.
Dils, I didn’t see Grossman play in college. Looked like he had a pretty good career at Florida and bypassed his final year of eligibility.. I watched many of Purdue’s games and was very impressed with Orton. I was suprised that the Bears selected him because our offensive scheme was completely different that the spread offense Orton played in under Tiller. I was also shocked, that he wasn’t drafted earlier than the 4th round. 31 tds and 5 ints his senior year and missed a month!
I bring up his career at Purdue because I know what he’s capable of.
When I evaluate Orton and compare him to any other QB, I have to look beyond the raw stats. Coaching, offensive scheme/OC, quality of receivers and offensive line, and the teams running game. Imo, and it is just my opinion, Kyle Orton has the potential to become a top 10 QB in the NFL. Jim Miller, for what it’s worth, feels the same way. Based upon my evaluation of Orton, I believe the Bears gave up way too much to acquire Cutler. Nothing I have seen, tells me Jay Cutler will end up being a better QB in the NFL. I don’t care if his arm is the strongest in the NFL. That doesn’t win any games. With the QB it comes down to what’s between the ears and to be honest, that is what worries me about Jay Cutler.

by rocko1 on May 24, 2009 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

grossman was screwed out of the heisman

he should’ve been the first sophomore Heisman award winner

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 24, 2009 7:47 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Phil Simms

LOVES Kyle Orton.

I always put the opinions of guys like Jaworski, Simms, Aikman, Young and other former QB’s and now current analysts above other opinions.

Moreso than anyone else, these guys know exactly what they are talkng about.

by GeoMak on May 24, 2009 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

that's funny

I remember Jaws calling Rex Grossman the MVP of the leauge in ’06

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 24, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well

When did he say it (if he said it at all)?

He might’ve said it mid-season. No way he said it by season’s end.

There’s no way he would have said it at season’s end, due to Rex’s inconsistent second half.

NO WAY!

Look, Jaws is clearly one of the smartest anaylsts in the NFL., especially at the QB position. Nobody watches more film than Jaws. He live close to NFL Films. I think he actually has a key to the place.

Anybody that would discredit Ron Jaworski on the subject of QB’s is pretty foolish.

by GeoMak on May 24, 2009 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Anybody that would discredit Ron Jaworski on the subject of QB’s is pretty foolish.

I never said that.

I like Jaws, as I’ve said many times over on this blog. But he, nor any other NFL analysts is a shaman, and are about just as accurate on information as any other joe, the difference is they’re on TV, have a funny hairdo, and get paid out the ass for doing it.

I remember my best friend telling me grossmans performance is a mirage and from then on, the real Grossman will come out starting next week. “next week” was the game against Arizona.

Even the Great bill Walsh predicted stenstron to be the next Joe Montana.

when it comes to football, I rely on instinct first before the word of another.

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 24, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Perfect example of "team sport"

I don’t think you can ever determine a player’s level of success because it depends so much on the team, scheme, management, and fan base around him. Favre, as great a player as he was, might not have ever had the success he realized in Green Bay had he played in Chicago or NYC early in his career. With all the picks he threw, he would have been roasted by the press in one of these markets, yet in Green Bay, they pretty much gave him a pass which let him evolve into the player he became. Would Joe Montana, been one of the greatest QB’s of all time, if he was drafted by the Bears or the Lions? Probably not. Steve Stenstrom might have been every bit as physically gifted as Montana, but defenses caught up to the West Coast offense, no Jerry Rice, no Roger Craig, etc. Situations change and we’ll never know what certain players would have achieved under different circumstances (positively or negatively).

Regarding Grossman, I always felt he had weaknesses in his game. Lack of height, slow to make decisions during a play, decent arm but not good enough at the pro level to take the chances he was famous for in the college ranks, didn’t seem to handle pressure well, to name a few. He had great stats in the first half of that season but if you really watched the games, he was very lucky that plays the defenses should have made went for first downs or touchdowns. He really didn’t change, but as teams got better and defenses tightened up, as they always do when playoff spots are at stake, the plays he got away with early in the season were no longer happening.

by BearFan611 on May 24, 2009 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

good insight

into the team aspect of the game BearsFan 611. Favre was skating on thin ice with the fans early in his caeer with the Packers. The patience/support of management and the coaching staff was the key.

by rocko1 on May 24, 2009 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, you IMPLIED it

You didn’t say it. Just implied it.

And this from you is STUPID: and are about just as accurate on information as any other joe, the difference is they’re on TV, have a funny hairdo, and get paid out the ass for doing it.

That’s IDIOTIC: Guys like Jaws have played the game. Played the QB position. Watch TONS of tape. Talk to hundreds and hundreds of people in the game.

And to you, their opinion is no more valid than than a guy sitting on a bar stool some where, or a guy blogging his brains out?

Honestly, that’s laughable.

As far as your best friend, that’s story is about as believable as Jaws saying that Grossman was the MVP in 2006. He never said that.

As far a Steve Stenstrom, who cares about a ‘prediction.’
Walsh said the same thing about Jake Plummer.
Maybe if those guys had the same coaching as Joe Montana and was surrounded by the same talent as Joe Montana they’d have ended up . . . like JOE MONTANA.

Look, whether you like it or not, when Phil Simms says that he loves Kyle Orton and has followed him since his days at Purdue, it carries a LOT more weight than what you, or I or your best friend, or your imaginary friend thinks.

It’s not even close.

It doesn’t mean that guys like SImms are psychic and can predict how someone’s career will turn out (they can’t because, as stated earlier, there are way too many variables, such as coaching and teammates, etc).

It doesn’t mean that they are infallible. I’ve seen two ‘experts’ say differing things about the same guy.

It does mean that with their background as former QB’s and with their current position as NFL analysts (where they watch COACHES TAPE and talk to current players) that they are light years ahead of OTHER JOES.

You like to argue (things that are common sense) and it gets tiring (and IS boring).

by GeoMak on May 24, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

LMAO, I get a kick out of you. really.

I never implied anything. It is what it is. I don’t make things up to prove a point, I bring fact’s, as I’ve showed you during our last debate.

Now I have nothing against Simms(being that I was good friends with his Nephew) but Even Dan Hampton of all people said the very same thing; His analysis of Kyle Orton should be taken with a grain of salt.

Look, whether you like it or not, when Phil Simms says that he loves Kyle Orton and has followed him since his days at Purdue, it carries a LOT more weight than what you, or I or your best friend, or your imaginary friend thinks.
true, but i’m not arguing that, so pay attention please. I’m talking about accuracy. And when It comes to making predictions as to what will go down in the regular season, they are just as in the dark as anybody else.
As far as your best friend, that’s story is about as believable as Jaws saying that Grossman was the MVP in 2006. He never said that.

I’m sorry if your memory isn’t as vivid as mine, but he did say it, so look it up. And as far as my friend goes, you’re in disbelief, as was I. deal with it. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t the only one in the world that felt that way.

As far a Steve Stenstrom, who cares about a ‘prediction.’
well, golly Geo. What’s the difference between what Walsh said about Stenstrom and what Simms is saying about Orton?
You like to argue (things that are common sense) and it gets tiring (and IS boring)
No, Geo. I reiterate things that are common sense to counter your arguments that make no sense at all.

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 24, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't be STUPID

When you say this:

I remember Jaws calling Rex Grossman the MVP of the leauge in ’06

The OBVIOUS (to anyone with half a brain) IMPLICATION is that Jaws (like Simms) doesn’t know whar he’s talking about.

Of course you IMPLIED that. Unless English is your SECOND language, the IMPLICATION was clear:

And then, your reinforced your IMPLICATION when you said this:

But he, nor any other NFL analysts is a shaman, and are about just as accurate on information as any other joe, the difference is they’re on TV, have a funny hairdo, and get paid out the ass for doing it.

Now the rest of your post. I’m not reading it and I’m not reesponding to it.

Why?

Because you have lost ALL credibility with me. You have none at this point.

Exhibit A: I stated yesterday that Mike Shanahan usually didn’t have aa complimentary defense to go along with his offense.

You, of course, take exception to what I have written.

You then list his defensive rankings, which CLEARLY show that, with his best QB under center since John Elway (Jay Cutler) the defense ranked ALMOST AT THE BOTTOM in Jay Cutler’s last two seasons with the team.

You just (stupidly) made my point for me (as you continued to argue against me).

You argue against me by bringing up facts which SUPPORT my POSITION!

That’s stupid!

Exhibit B:

You clearly IMPLY that Jaws was wrong. Then you further SUPPORT that IMPLICATION by stating that Jaws and others alike him are no more knowledgable that ‘average Joe’s.’

And then, you make this classic statement:

I never implied anything.

UNBELIEVABLE! Of course you did. That’s EXACTLY what you did.

You did it to perfection.

You are either a LIAR or you don’t know the meaning of the word IMPLY.

Don’t stand there and tell me you didn’t "IMPLY’ it.

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID!

BTW: Here’s the difference between what Walsh ssaid about Stenstrom and what Simms said about Orton:

One (Walsh) is a PREDICTION based on seeing someone play in college and then PROJECTING what he might play like in thre NFL. At least that’s what Walsh did with Jake Plummer. I am assuming it’s the same with Stenstrom.

Walsh also did the same with Rick Mirer. Walsh obviously wasn’t much when it came to predictions. Clearly.

Simms, however never compared Orton to a HOF player like Montana, did he?. He simpley said that he love’s Orton’s game.

He loved it then (Purdue) and he loves it now (Chicago).

I am starting to think that your basic problem is English Comprehension.

You clearly have trouble understanding words like IMPLY and you clearly have trouble understanding the difference between making a PREDICTION and STATING a PREFERENCE.

Walsh made a (foolish) prediction.
Simms stated a preference.

by GeoMak on May 24, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Imply

im·ply (m-pl)
tr.v. im·plied, im·ply·ing, im·plies

To express or indicate indirectly: His tone implied disapproval. See Synonyms at suggest. See Usage Note at infer.

Jaws calling Grossman the MVP of 2006, according to you (When he CLEARLY wasn’t close to being the MVP)

is your way of “indicating indirectly” – see definition above, that Jaws doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

It’s your way of “suggesting” or “inferring” or IMPLYING!

by GeoMak on May 24, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

it's so hysterical how much of a coot you turn into when somebody calls you out on your bullshit.
Exhibit A: I stated yesterday that Mike Shanahan usually didn’t have aa complimentary defense to go along with his offense

No ya didn’t. you said,

4. Shanahan’s a great offensive coach who couldn’t put together the players and/or coaches necessary to have a complimentary defense for his offense.

Now from that statement, you are IMPLYING that he was never able to put together a good defense to compliment his offense, EVER. so what do you do when I bring the facts, you switch it around and say, “oh I meant during the cutler era.” really Geo, Who ya crappin?

You clearly IMPLY that Jaws was wrong. Then you further SUPPORT that IMPLICATION by stating that Jaws and others alike him are no more knowledgable that ‘average Joe’s.’
hmm. how do come to that conclusion when all I said was
I remember Jaws calling Rex Grossman the MVP of the leauge in ’06

Geo, who ya crappin? And here’s the kicker. This is what you wrote
It doesn’t mean that guys like SImms are psychic and can predict how someone’s career will turn out (they can’t because, as stated earlier, there are way too many variables, such as coaching and teammates, etc).
so…what you’re saying is they are no more knowledgeable about the future of players than say, an average joe? Geo, Who ya crappin?
Now the rest of your post. I’m not reading it and I’m not reesponding to it
you’ve already read it, Geo. you just can’t counter it, and can’t argue against it. you know I’m right. You just can’t admit it.

Instead you switch the CAPS lock on and write a bunch of blather because you think the more you write, the more you’re right.

You try to explain the difference between Walsh and Simms, but you’re not looking at the big picture and easily fall off of subject, which seems to be a reoccurring problem with you.

These guy’s are supposedly all-knowledgeable men in their profession and have given praise to a player.

will that make them better players? no. do they know if they’re good? no. so what’s the difference between what they say to what someone on this blog says?

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 24, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ifuwanna 2 GeoMak 0

Crownem takes it for the second straight day. Favorite line so far

Don’t stand there and tell me you didn’t "IMPLY’ it.

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID!

I think Geo should get treatment at a rehab clinic for a CAPS lock addiction.

Nobody rec’d the bible or the declaration of independence. Those turned out swell.
-Ifuwanna

by KtownBear on May 24, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

I don't know who won, but

it sure was entertaining to read. A real courtroom drama with exhibits, expert witnesses, and on and on aaaaaannnnddddd
ooooonnnnnnn.

by rocko1 on May 24, 2009 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Some people like to talk STUPID

Whenever I hear a blogger criticize guys like Simms & Jaworski, I know that that’s an ignorant person.

When someone says ‘I never implied anything’ when that’s exactly what they did (to anybody that knows the definition of implied) I know that I am talking to someone that has little concept of reality.

Some people like to talk stupid and argue for the sake of arguing. For example:

I simply said that Phil Simms loves Kyle Orton. Simms stated that a while back when he son Chris was being mentioned as a QB for the Bears.

Then “The Genius” chimes in with:

That’s funny. I remember Jaws calling Rex Grossman the MVP of the leauge in ’06.

A). What does Jaws and Grossman have to do with Simms & Orton?

Answer? NOTHING. Not one damn thing.

B). The only possible reason for that statement is to IMPLY that Jaws was incorrect , so therefore Simms must be incorrect.

When called out on that “The Genius” says:

I never implied anything.

What a joke.

Some people like to discuss football on a serious level.

And others like to just argue and talk stupid.

by GeoMak on May 24, 2009 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hahahahaha!!!

more whining dude? get over it! this is not a reply for me, so obviously, you’re just looking for a shoulder to cry on. I just wanna know one thing, Geo…

Who ya crappin?

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 24, 2009 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was expressing

my gratitude to both for the entertaining debate. I agree with you on Simms and Jaworski 100%. I like Jim Miller as well, especially when he’s outside of the Comcast studio.
GeoMak you are one of the few members with multiple FanPosts over the past several months. As a new member, I respect that the fact that you walk the walk on this blog by generating the content for discussion. they are well composed and written, imo.
Your comments take off on all sorts of tangents to the discussion at hand, but we would never end up with the name of the greatest left handed pitcher of all time in Sandy Koufax if you didn’t.

by rocko1 on May 24, 2009 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

we all respect him, but he needs to understand

1. His shit stinks like the rest of us
2. He gets offensive if others doesn’t agree with his opinions, yet always complains about bloggers bashing him.
3. notice how he took my one simple statement and blew it way out of proportion. And then started throwing accusations my way.

Geo’s cool, he just has a habit of underestimating other guy’s on this blog. And when they put him in his place, he changes the subject, starts hurling insults and sets the CAPS lock to cruise control.

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 24, 2009 8:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

yep

and Ifuwanna’s defended him the most on this blog, so he’s not just talkin shit.

Nobody rec’d the bible or the declaration of independence. Those turned out swell.
-Ifuwanna

by KtownBear on May 24, 2009 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree

Geo started hurling insults that weren’t necessary and it got the party started. Both of you then became pretty aggressive(pissing contest) and the potential discussion about NFL anaysts completely broke down.

by rocko1 on May 24, 2009 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

For what it's worth, rocko1

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me.

It’s the American way.

I do have a problem with people that can’t back up their comments with facts. Instead of complete nonsense.

And today was a perfect example of what I am talking about.

See, some people like ifuwannna like to argue just to argue.

There are a few like that on every blog.

You were talking about Orton earlier, and I just added something that I have said before. That “Phil Simms loves Kyle Orton.”

And then, only for the purpose of starting an argument, ifuwanna makes a comment about Jaworski ‘supposedly endorsing Grossman as MVP in 2006.’

He was basically implying that Jaworski was obviously incorrect about Grossman (no intelligent human being would endorse Rex as MVP, at least not towards the end of 2006) so Simms too must be incorrect about Orton, when he says that he likes Orton.

Notice, of course, that Simms never once said that Orton was great, or that Orton was the MVP or anything like that.

Just that, at Purdue and thereafter, Simms has been a big fan of Kyle’s.

However, according to ifuwanna:

But he, nor any other NFL analysts is a shaman, and are about just as accurate on information as any other joe, the difference is they’re on TV, have a funny hairdo, and get paid out the ass for doing it.

That’s ignorant. Comparing guys like Jaws & Simms to ‘average Joes’ is just ignorant.

Some people like to discuss football in an intelligent manner. And others just like to argue other’s opinions, not because they are incorrect, but just for the sake of arguing.

by GeoMak on May 24, 2009 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow.

Again, infer what you want from that….

"Like a young contortionist, for the first time coming into his own...." -Bert Sugar

by Just Dave on May 24, 2009 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I never implied anything.

THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID – IN ALL CAPS

You’re a joke.

by GeoMak on May 24, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow.

You can INFER what ever you want from that.

"Like a young contortionist, for the first time coming into his own...." -Bert Sugar

by Just Dave on May 24, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

a true losers lament...

Think With Your Dipstick Jimmy!

by ifuwannacrownem on May 24, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Seller's remorse

 Why the heck is he being interviewed by a Chicago radio station? Bowlen is still trying to rationalize trading away a franchise QB. I can’t wait for McDaniels to fall flat on his ass!

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

"Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack." - Sun Tzu

by propheteer on May 23, 2009 1:07 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

FUNNY!!!!

Seller’s remorse, I love it!

by rdent4hof on May 23, 2009 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks a bunch!

"I'm not so mean. I wouldn't ever go out to hurt anybody deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something." - Dick Butkus

"Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack." - Sun Tzu

by propheteer on May 23, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Whats up Bears fan.

Donk fan here, just thought I’d give a Bronco fans opinion on Bowlen, and Shanahan:

First off, Pat Bowlen saved the Bronco franchise. While we haven’t had 26 seasons of success with him at the helm, he’s still been a great owner. He’s provided the Denver area with a lot more than a team. He and his family have given the state of Colorado a lot of donations, and he was an integral part of the committee that got the DNC to Denver last year. That’s something they didn’t really broadcast anywhere, but Bowlen as an owner has done a hell of a lot more for the Broncos and their fans than any other owner would/could. It’s sadly true, however, that his health seems to be in a decline. Some are speculating it could be alzheimers, but I should hope not. I’m sure we can all agree though, that it’s great he’s willing to hand the keys over to other people to run the franchise for him. Further proof that he’s nothing like the worst owner in sports, Al Davis. (yuck)

Next up, Mike Shanahan. Well, what is there to say about Shanny that isn’t already clearly known? He had an incredible tenure in Denver and is a HoF coach. He’s still got the love for the game and he will coach again. Where he coaches, no one knows yet. Shanahan brought a lot of new ideologies and theories to Denver that, quite frankly, Wade Phillips and Dan Reeves had no idea existed. Shanahan implemented the West Coast offense that was so great with the 49ers of the 80’s. We can all agree, the Niners in Bill Walsh’s time were phenomenal. Mike brought a similar style to Denver in 1994, and in his first draft as a head coach, he helped get Terrell Davis. It’s no doubt the guy has some awesome talents for finding diamonds in the rough, and organizing an offense. His coaching methods became stale, even dangerous for the players on the team though. In 2008, almost every player on the team had lost weight, and it wasn’t due to anything but poor conditioning. Mike Shanahan is a great coach, but in order for him to succeed again, he CANNOT have complete control of a franchise like he did in Denver.

Thanks for reading and good luck to all of you!

"It means nothing to throw for 4500 yards, 25 touchdowns, and you dont win" -Brandon Marshall

by Joe Medina on May 24, 2009 11:02 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Could you elaborate more on

 “His coaching methods became stale, even dangerous for the players on the team though”

by rdent4hof on May 25, 2009 7:15 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Absolutely.

His method as a collective was great. However, his lack of adjustment on a per-game basis was horrid. He planned every game the same way, and that’s a bad idea when you play the Chargers one week, and then the Jets the next. As far as the danger in it, here’s what I found out. Almost every player on the team lost weight between the start of the season to the end. That’s not necessarily always bad, but his conditioning and medical staff weren’t necessarily keeping the players as healthy as they should have been. A very evident result was the fact we went through 7 running backs last year. Of course you can’t blame all of those injuries on bad conditioning and bad health management. A case could be made though, that maybe if the coaches were more aware that these guys keep getting hurt, they would have worked to strengthen the running backs all season. Good conditioning is the key to avoiding injury. Staying limber and strong will keep you healthy.

"It means nothing to throw for 4500 yards, 25 touchdowns, and you dont win" -Brandon Marshall

by Joe Medina on May 26, 2009 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If Bowlen was such a great owner

wouldn’t he also realize the “turrible” conditioning?

to blame the coach for going through 7 RB’s is a bit of a stretch.

Luckily in Chicago we don’t have that problem, we’ve got 1 great RB and a couple other good RB’s.

Hillis wasn’t bad imo

If you want to crown em...

by JohnnyTruant on May 26, 2009 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, I don't blame THE COACH for the bad conditioning.

However, I do blame the GM. Oh wait, that was Shanahan too.

As far as Bowlen not knowing about it, it’s not his job to know. He doesn’t oversee that staff. He oversees the business end of it, and the players (at the time) were left to Shanahan and his group.

Thanks for the love on Hillis. I hope he’s the starting guy behind Moreno this year. I see both of them splitting carries throughout the season. I love Chicago’s running backs. You guys seem to always find strong backs that work out well for your system. I wish you all the best of luck with the season, and I think it’s pretty realistic that you could grab the division from Minnesota (MSM favorites).

I’d like to see the Bears do something this year. I was pullin for you’s in the last SB you were in and I think for the most part, you all could do that again.

"It means nothing to throw for 4500 yards, 25 touchdowns, and you dont win" -Brandon Marshall

by Joe Medina on May 26, 2009 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

thanks,

interesting opinion. If my memory serves me? No, No it is not serving me. One of either Wannstedt or Jauron had similar problems with conditioning and injuries.

by rdent4hof on May 27, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome Grabowskis, to SB Nation's blog about everything Chicago Bears.

Community Guidelines
Start posting about the Bears »

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

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Lightbulb_small
Why The Defense Has Collapsed
Bears_small
Hang in there, Bears!

Recent FanPosts

610x_small
My keys to victory over Cardinals
Small
2010 O-Line Help in Draft? Unlikely
Medium_matt-forte_small
An interesting video!
Jimmcmahon_small
Olin Kreutz is one of the dirtiest players in the NFL
Andrew602_avatar_small
Ask Revenge of the Birds
Bears2_small
Key Player to keep an eye on: Dominique Rodgers-Comartie
Devin-hester_small
Photshop contest
Small
The Upcoming Schedule & DA Defense
19936057_m_medium_small
Free Agent To Be Offensive Linemen
Devin-hester_small
Garrett Wolfe

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Blogging The Boys
Pickin' & Grinnin' Week Nine
Mile High Report
Scouting Terrence Cody
Battle Red Blog
Ryan Moats Will Start Against The Colts

SPONSORS


General Manager/ Head Coach

Windycity_small Adam T

Les-miles-bears-2_small Dane Noble

Assistant Head Coach

Briggsie_small ChiFan13

Position Coaches

Evalltheway_small SackMan

Leelee_n_laylor_bff wiltfongjr