Bears wide receivers dissed again!

Spell fail miscommunication* Being a 19 year old male,women are on my mind every second, of every day………

bullsh*t upon more bullsh*t. You can’t even give one solid point towards your opinion but you think you are right. You don’t comment on any stats or factual information that I introduce to the conversation, you ignore it and throw out the same old tired one-liners. Your argument is pathetic and weak and you know it. You can’t always win when you’ve already lost.

of receivers being really young in the course of a year, that’s impossible. Obviously Knox has fixed the problem of being a rookie, he’s now a veteran. Hester is a wide receiver and deserves to be so that’s not fixing itself. D.A. not playing until a certain week isn’t fixable without a time machine and the new QB isn’t new anymore so that’s fixed. Ron Turner has been fired but we don’t know if the OC position has been fixed so we’ll call that: TBD.

I’m a big fan of omelets

You keep saying that— “9th worse” , yet I don’t know where you pulled that from? A chicken’s egghole?

NFL.com has receiving rankings/stats by team, and the Bears finished
-10th in TDs
-17th in yds per game
-19th in points per game

(all rankings __"best", not “worst”)

I completely “get” the old counting chickens vs. eggs cliche, thanks for your condescension, though.

Appreciate that.

YOU don’t seem to get that educated and intelligent people are able to use what we refer to as “evidence”—factual, circumstantial, anecdotal, or otherwise—to either refute or support a given claim, and that THAT is the basis by which we assert a claim does (or does not) have merit, and by which we evaluate the strength of that merit.

Instead, you seem to have a stubborn and simplistic view where you think that if you just insist on something, repeatedly and with increasing rudeness, that it gains in credibility and merit.

Wrong, sparky.

But when pushed, you become like a scared octopus that inks up its own water, clouding the issue with irrelevancies and by insisting that other people “just aren’t getting it”.

Oh, but we do—and we’re trying to discuss it. Using facts and evidence (I know that seems strange to you and all….

And if that doesn’t work for you, you resort to this:
 

I am usually right.

i always win

Which, to me, absolutely reeks of insecurity—usually it’s the most cocky, braggadocious self-promoting self-congratulatory blowhards who have the lowest opinion of themselves.

The same guys that call themselves “awesome” on the proverbial playground are the same ones crying themselves to sleep at night.

In that regard, “I am usually right”.

Now, I’d like to go back to the point that PSausageDB and others made—it seems like you haven’t “really” watched the Bears, because anyone who did KNOWS that their primary problems last year weren’t the WRs.

As is usually the case on sputtering offenses, the Bears’ troubles started up on the line. Which meant the pass protection broke down, Cutler was rushed, made poor decisions, etc. And with no running game to speak of, the offense was frequently faced with 3rd and longs, etc.

In fact, I’d LOVE to know a single game where the WRs were the PRIMARY/obvious reason for the loss…I can think of games where you can pretty much squarely pin blame on the O-line, or the QB, or the RBs, or the secondary, or the coaches, or D-line, etc. but not ONE where the outcome of the game was truly dictated by play at WR (unless it was a good outcome).

Can you?

Agreeing that our WRs are approximately the 9th worst receivers in the league is far from saying we will suck. It isn’t good though. And it certainly is an indictment of our receivers, cause after all they do kinda suck

(nice contradiction, btw—"far from saying they suck—but they do suck)

At the least—you must understand that the o-line, the QB, the running game, and the coaching are all inextricably tied to the WRs performance, right?

If even ONE of those is off, the other suffers.

So to single them out as THE sucky unit just shows a lack of football savvy, poor comprehension about the interconnectedness of a team, and a willful ignorance of how they truly performed last year, given the inexperience and problems all around them.

So, even though not every egg is a chicken, not every egg is NOT a chicken, either (some could even be lizards! or turtles! or vultures!)
Can you wrap your jaded mind ’round that one?

Now, are you just going to keep saying the same thing, or do you actually have something evidentiary to support your “point”?

Eggsistentially,
AB