# Rex Grossman



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Am I dreaming?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Yes.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

He has played a hell of a game! Bears looking strong!


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Man, Rex showed out. Haven't seen an offensive display like that from the Bears in a long time.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

today was a good day.

and i loved the clutch from our defense.
for 3 and half quarters, kitna was carving us the ef up, but couldn't
convert 3rd downs. and the sackage. oh lord, the sackage.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

The pass defense needs to tighhten up though.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

That. Was. Awesome.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Picked him up for the fantasy team...


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

_Dre_ said:


> Picked him up for the fantasy team...



May be a risk. I mean, it was against Detroit...

I would have waited for consistency.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

It sounds stupid, but we haven't seen the long ball from anyone since... Jim Miller? Not even, really. I can't remember seeing a Bears QB air it out like that. Bernard Berrian immediately has joined my fantasy team, as Rex seems to have found a nice end zone target. I added Robbie Gould too; sort of a nice find after losing Edinger, no? I'd add Desmond Clark too, except that I have Jeremy Shockey and you can't start more than one TE in my league.

Thomas Jones is the biggest letdown. I never would have thought that Rex Grossman's arrival would have affected Thomas Jones so much.

Rex Grossman is my backup to Peyton Manning.

I have Nathan Vasher on my defense, as well, and I'm positive that he's going to get one of those magic interceptions someday really soon.

With a wideout core of Chad Johnson and Deion Branch (starting next week), I'm going to actually contemplate putting either Bobby Wade or Bernard Berrian in as one of my WR/RB, because gosh, Chris Brown and Tatum Bell are hurting my heart. They are both such talented tailbacks; why are they sucking it up so bad?

Anyway. The point is, the Bears are getting so good and while I'm sure they'll have road bumps along the way, they are looking freaking good. Granted, they beat two of their division rivals who haven't exactly been the best teams in the league, but they STEAMROLLED them as dominant teams should. And I'm trying to align my fantasy team rooting with the team that I love. Maybe I should trade for Urlacher.

Gosh, GO BEARS!


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Dissonance19 said:


> May be a risk. I mean, it was against Detroit...
> 
> I would have waited for consistency.


Well, I had Favre and Bledsoe as my QBs, so consistency wasn't terribly apparent on the team anyways.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

_Dre_ said:


> Well, I had Favre and Bledsoe as my QBs, so consistency wasn't terribly apparent on the team anyways.



Good point.

I have McNabb, and Vick as my QBs.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Thomas Jones is the biggest letdown. I never would have thought that Rex Grossman's arrival would have affected Thomas Jones so much.


Just wait 'till October when the termperature drops. Jones and Benson will be running all over the field. I look at this offense, despite the recent success, as built for the frozen tundra of. . . well, Soldier's Field. It's just not the best way to play this early in the season -- it's coming. 

I have been somewhat impressed by Grossman, but the big surprise for me is our wide receivers. Grossman's throwing balls up when they're in positions to make plays. But they've really stepped up. Today, everyone of them had at least one 'wow' play.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

He's always seemed pretty good if he could just stay healthy. Of course, today was better than just pretty good.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

Grossman played with alot of confidence today 3 touchdowns and 289yds!!! If the Bears weren't killing the Lions the whole game they would have kept Rex in and he would of got 300 probley on his next play.I wanted him to get the 300 but I guess you can't risk injury especially when its grossman.Another points I'd like to make are these:We have good recievers as well.They looked bad last year because Orton was throwing the ball.Moose has been one of the best recievers in the leauge and with a good QB we can see that.Bernard is just shocking right now he isn't just open but he has made some very difficult catches.Desomond Clark has been big as well.The real credit should go to the line however they kept Rex on his feet all day and he had all day to make passes.The running game must improve other then that we seem to be solid on both sides of the ball.Bears will be champions mark my words!!!


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

_Dre_ said:


> Picked him up for the fantasy team...


I did too, although Hasselbeck is my starter. I dropped McNair for him.

Picked up Desmond Clark as my backup TE after last week. With Cooley and Washington doing nothing, I may just start Clark next week.

First time I've had more than one Bear on my fantasy team ever.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

Showtyme said:


> With a wideout core of Chad Johnson and Deion Branch (starting next week), I'm going to actually contemplate putting either Bobby Wade or Bernard Berrian in as one of my WR/RB, because gosh, Chris Brown and Tatum Bell are hurting my heart. They are both such talented tailbacks; why are they sucking it up so bad?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Florida knows how to make QB's.

Here's to a healthy season.


----------



## JonH818 (Aug 31, 2006)

I don't think that it's fair to blame the backs for being unproductive. The offensive line is doing a great job protecting grossman but when it comes to opening holes for the backs, they are doing a horrible job. If you look at all of the running plays that they have called, the offensive line has only opened up a couple small holes that Thomas barely squeezed through. I can understand if one back is gaining more yards than the other but both of them are averaging 3 yards a carry. If we had LaDainian Tomlinson right now, he would be averaging the same. No matter how strong or fast you are, there has to be some running room to be productive and right now, the backs are getting none. I really think that by game 4, the running game will be back to last year.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

JonH818 said:


> I don't think that it's fair to blame the backs for being unproductive. The offensive line is doing a great job protecting grossman but when it comes to opening holes for the backs, they are doing a horrible job. If you look at all of the running plays that they have called, the offensive line has only opened up a couple small holes that Thomas barely squeezed through. I can understand if one back is gaining more yards than the other but both of them are averaging 3 yards a carry. If we had LaDainian Tomlinson right now, he would be averaging the same. No matter how strong or fast you are, there has to be some running room to be productive and right now, the backs are getting none. I really think that by game 4, the running game will be back to last year.


I hope your right... the Bears are going to need a solid, of not outstanding running game to really rack up the wins this year, and make any noise in the playoffs. Watching Rex play up to some of that magical potential has been a wonderful sight, but I'm not expecting him to go out and lead the league in QB rating or TD passes this year (even if he *is* as of week 2) 

I really don't think that these first two games mean that the Bears are now a passing team... and that being the case their running game has been something of a dissapointmen. Now even if that is the only thing to quibble over thus far, it could prove to be a disaster late in the season when Rex comes back down to earth a bit, and neither Jones nor Benson can prove to carry the load... 

but hey, I'll just go out optimistically and say this: the defense is already there, and should continue to be there all year. Rex is playing out of his mind, and it's just the beginning -- we're finally seeing the REAL Rex Grossman. Lastly, the run-blocking will come around and start producing 150+ yards rushing each game. with all those factors in place, that puts the Bears as the clear-cut #1 team in the league, and really noone could compete with them at all...
... that is, if my last three points are true


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Over the past several years, the Bears have had some of the worst quarterbacking imaginable. The best and most successful QB over this period was Kyle Orton, who is now, rightly, the #3 QB. 

Grossman throws what I call "big boy" passes, real NFL-caliber throws. Touch, zip, hitting a receiver in stride, that sort of thing. He's done it before...he just kept getting broken.

The first 2 games this season, and particular the Lions game, were a joy to watch. One warning: Grossman is NOT a "game managing" kind of QB. He's a Brett Favre-type gunslinger. He WILL take the Bears out of a game or 2 by trying to do too much. It's his nature.

This said, when Rex is on his game, with the quality of the defense, this Bears team is VERY formidable. Barring some significant injuries, this is gonna be one fun season.


----------



## JonH818 (Aug 31, 2006)

Wishbone said:


> I hope your right... the Bears are going to need a solid, of not outstanding running game to really rack up the wins this year, and make any noise in the playoffs. Watching Rex play up to some of that magical potential has been a wonderful sight, but I'm not expecting him to go out and lead the league in QB rating or TD passes this year (even if he *is* as of week 2)
> 
> I really don't think that these first two games mean that the Bears are now a passing team... and that being the case their running game has been something of a dissapointmen. Now even if that is the only thing to quibble over thus far, it could prove to be a disaster late in the season when Rex comes back down to earth a bit, and neither Jones nor Benson can prove to carry the load...
> 
> ...


If you think about it, last year the offensive line didn't have to worry about protecting the QB as much. They were handing off most of the time. Yes....defenses were more focused on the run, but at the same time, the offensive line was too. Orton couldn't do squat with the passing game so the main focus was on the running game. That puts the entire offensive line in a different mind set. Their only focus was to free up holes to get Thomas Jones running the ball. That was the only thing working. NOW........the offensive line has to focus on both. Give Grossman enough time, he is dangerous but as soon as the line perfects both, WATCH OUT EVERYONE!!!!!


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

transplant said:


> This said, when Rex is on his game, with the quality of the defense, this Bears team is VERY formidable. Barring some significant injuries, this is gonna be one fun season.


 :cheers:


----------



## crazyfan (Dec 9, 2005)

_Dre_ said:


> Well, I had Favre and Bledsoe as my QBs, so consistency wasn't terribly apparent on the team anyways.




That's not good but i'm worse i got Culpepper and Bledsoe.

Culpepper's killing me.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

crazyfan said:


> That's not good but i'm worse i got Culpepper and Bledsoe.
> 
> Culpepper's killing me.


My only bright spot on my team has been Westbrook and Coles. I'm 0-2 with these as my starters:

QB Hasselbeck
RB Larry Johnson
RB Westbrook
WR Boldin
WR Driver
WR Coles
TE Cooley
K Elam
Def Carolina (dropped Tampa Bay for them after Week 1)

In a 50 yd/pt passing & 20yd/pt rushing & receiving, the lack of TDs is stopping me into the ground despite touches and good yardage for everyone not named Cooley.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

GB said:


> Am I dreaming?


haha! That last INT was.. hmm.. special.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

transplant said:


> Over the past several years, the Bears have had some of the worst quarterbacking imaginable. The best and most successful QB over this period was Kyle Orton, who is now, rightly, the #3 QB.
> 
> Grossman throws what I call "big boy" passes, real NFL-caliber throws. Touch, zip, hitting a receiver in stride, that sort of thing. He's done it before...he just kept getting broken.
> 
> ...



This post was spot on.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

aaaaaaaaaaand sexy rexy shows up when it counts

3-0


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Rex is getting help, Bears only have one dropped pass this season. The d of course has given him good field position. His 3 INT's were all pretty bad decisions, he also had a few more bad decisions that were almost INT's today. Every single bad throw he has made this year he was under pressure and tried to make something out of nothing, when he learns when to throw the ball away a little better he could be special.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

he's got a major flaw i agree, but he already is special
and he came out of the metrodome in one piece...


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I'm still not sure, for all of his success, if he is a better match for this team than Orton. I wonder if it's just better to play uber-conserative, not make any turnovers, and let the defense do their thing. Especially come playoff time, I want something more consistent to pair with this team.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I'm still not sure, for all of his success, if he is a better match for this team than Orton. I wonder if it's just better to play uber-conserative, not make any turnovers, and let the defense do their thing. Especially come playoff time, I want something more consistent to pair with this team.



that's just crazy talk! I understand where you're coming from - but if you want a consistent, conservative, game-managing type QB, we would be better off with Griese than Orton

much better off I think...

but despite his flaws, I've been pretty happy with Rex's game thus far this season. sure, almost cost us the game with that interception returned for a TD, but when the defense gave him the oppourtunity to make it up at crunch time - bam! he throws that beauty to Davis. tell me Orton would have made that throw, and I'd ask you to have your head examined.

further - with the way teams are stacking up to stop the run against us this year, it's been crucial to have a QB who throws downfield accurately. I don't think there's any way the Bears are laughing off the field the way they did in Green Bay and in front of the Lions with either Orton or Greise at the helm, and I don't think either could have nailed that TD pass the same way either
(although arguably, Greise would never have thrown either awful INT pass to put the Bears in a hole in the first place)


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Yeah, Orton wasn't capable of winning games for the Bears, just not losing them. Grossman can actually come up, and win a game for the Bears, and not have to depend on the defense.

But still, McNabb > Grossman, so my teams set.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Wishbone said:


> that's just crazy talk! I understand where you're coming from - but if you want a consistent, conservative, game-managing type QB, we would be better off with Griese than Orton
> 
> much better off I think...
> 
> ...


what a post. well done. (no offense to SST, i definitely understand your concern)

the main thing for me is that with rex and griese, i don't have to 
worry about the qb position anymore. and with the defense being a huge strength of ours,
there's only one flaw in our team, holding us back from making the superbowl and that's our
running game. and we have 2 RBs, a solid O-line and 13 more games to figure that out.
i'd say it's good to be a bears fan this year.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> I'm still not sure, for all of his success, if he is a better match for this team than Orton. I wonder if it's just better to play uber-conserative, not make any turnovers, and let the defense do their thing. Especially come playoff time, I want something more consistent to pair with this team.


I see where you're coming from, but in my view, Orton was no more consistent than Rex and completely, utterly lacked the ability to make plays. I mean, did he complete more than 10 passes beyond the flat all season? I think, as Wishbone pointed out, Griese is probably the QB you're looking for. In fact, I think Griese, surrounded by a team like this, could be a Dilfer/Brad Johnson type of game manager and do enough to make us a legit Super Bowl team. I don't think Orton can do that - imagine us down 3 in the 4th quarter of a playoff game and needing to convert a 3rd and long. Griese can make that play, Orton probably can't. That being said, Grossman is "the guy" at the moment and as much as he makes me nervous sometimes, it's really exciting to have a QB who can do some damage to the other team for once (as well as the Bears, I admit - that INT/TD was absolutely horrid).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, i finally got to see a Bears game today, and Rex was everything he's been advertised as. He does have to be the wildest QB out there since Favre came into the league. Lovie Smith is probably going to **** his pants a couple times a game through the course of the season.

All I can say is that in practical terms, this is a kid without even a season's worth of games under his belt. If he can just reign in the absolutely crazy mis-reads (I'm going to take the wild guess that it was mostly him continually getting the wrong hot route and throwing it behind guys who, in fact, were heading upfield at full tilt) a little bit, I'd imagine he'll be fine.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Little known fact:

The name Rex is derived from the Latin term for "Thabo."


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Little known fact:
> 
> The name Rex is derived from the Latin term for "Thabo."


and "Thabo" is jibberish for "Jordan"


----------



## JonH818 (Aug 31, 2006)

such sweet thunder said:


> I'm still not sure, for all of his success, if he is a better match for this team than Orton. I wonder if it's just better to play uber-conserative, not make any turnovers, and let the defense do their thing. Especially come playoff time, I want something more consistent to pair with this team.



wow.......did you actually mention Orton's name. That's absolutely ridiculous. With a backup like Griese, you bring up Orton. HAHAHA

Is this a Green Bay fan invading a Chicago board?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Was anyones faith in *Lovie Smith* shaken by his clutzy coaching & clock-management yesterday?


----------



## Simpleton (Feb 18, 2005)

paxman said:


> what a post. well done. (no offense to SST, i definitely understand your concern)
> 
> the main thing for me is that with rex and griese, i don't have to
> worry about the qb position anymore. and with the defense being a huge strength of ours,
> ...


The Bears passing game is hardly what you would consider strong.

Muhammad is a good possession WR, Berrian is a decent deep threat and your TE's are ok but when you start to play better teams, you'll see how Grossman and the rest of your passing game can be shut down.

Hell, it happened against Minnesota yesterday but because your defense is so good and Grossman came up with some heroics you still won.

Don't get me wrong, the Bears are one of the top 5 teams in the NFC but it's not just your running game that could hold your back, your passing game, more specifically your pass-targets, could too.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

I may be stepping on someone else's toes here, but I don't have the time to read all the previous posts in this thread...

I have never liked Grossman, at least not as a starting quarterback, but he looked good in the first two games. When he started out 6 of 7 yesterday, I told a friend of mine "if he has another good game, I'll stop thinking the first two were a fluke." Then, the Vikings started to blitz hard and the pressure was getting to him. You could see after a couple hurries, he was acting tentative and was making bad decisions (Sharper should have had that INT in the 1st half, which likely would have been 6, among a few other near picks).

In one of the last two games, the color guy (Tim Green?) talked about how Grossman can get rattled easily when there's pressure. That appears to have been spot on. It worries me, as teams, some of which have better offenses than Minnesota, will see the tape of yesterday's game and try to exploit the same weakness. Next time, the Bears may not be able to overcome it.

I still don't trust him and think we'd have a much, much, much better shot at getting deep into the playoffs with Griese starting all season.

On a semi-related note, Dick Stockton has to be the worst play-by-play man in the business. Atrocious.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

PC Load Letter said:


> I may be stepping on someone else's toes here, but I don't have the time to read all the previous posts in this thread...
> 
> I have never liked Grossman, at least not as a starting quarterback, but he looked good in the first two games. When he started out 6 of 7 yesterday, I told a friend of mine "if he has another good game, I'll stop thinking the first two were a fluke." Then, the Vikings started to blitz hard and the pressure was getting to him. You could see after a couple hurries, he was acting tentative and was making bad decisions (Sharper should have had that INT in the 1st half, which likely would have been 6, among a few other near picks).
> 
> ...



The only thing Griese has over Grossman is experience. Once Grossman climbs that mountain, he easily becomes the better QB. Remember, he's only started 11 games in his career. His PT is not just for this season...but the several down the road.

He's got a great arm and a nice touch. What he did those first two games is what he'll have to learn to do with the pressure collapsing in on him the way it yesterday...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Peter King:



> Rex Grossman is growing up as a quarterback. His winning touchdown pass at a very tough place to play, the Metrodome, came when he stared the safety into staying left, then threw right to Rashied Davis, single-covered by a cornerback he'd beaten. Great play by a rising star.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/09/24/mmqb.9.25/1.html


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

PC Load Letter said:


> On a semi-related note, Dick Stockton has to be the worst play-by-play man in the business. Atrocious.


Like right before halftime when the bears had no more time outs and he reiterated 3 times that the Bears were going to rush their kicking unit on if they got the first down in field goal position. What sense does that make? That just annoyed the hell out of me.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Grossman is clearly the best QB the Bears have suited up in a long time.

Its nice to have an offense again.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

It is definitely nice to be no longer pining away for the "Three Headed Monster" days of Mike Phipps, Vince Evans, and Bob Avellini.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I'm still not sure, for all of his success, if he is a better match for this team than Orton. I wonder if it's just better to play uber-conserative, not make any turnovers, and let the defense do their thing. Especially come playoff time, I want something more consistent to pair with this team.


Insanity.

I can't believe there are still people who even mention Kyle Orton.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Little known fact:
> 
> The name Rex is derived from the Latin term for "Thabo."


Rex is latin for king.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

sloth said:


> Rex is latin for king.


so what are you saying? he's somehow related to LeBron?

that guy's a chump. he's nothing comapared to Thabo! :banana:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Insanity.
> 
> I can't believe there are still people who even mention Kyle Orton.


 Tell me: would this game have been a two point victory if Orton started (who I'll more than admit is putrid quarterback). No pick off run back for six. Also, the coaching staff would have focussed more on the runin the first half, like they should have. The game wouldn't have been as cloase -- end of story. I would put at even money that the Bears even score more points. It's not about the best players, but the best match. 

I don't want Orton to start. I want an uber-conservative vet who'll sit back, let us run the ball, and push the defense to do their thing. Theres no chance in hell this team does anything come the playoffs unless Rex reigns in his game.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

such sweet thunder said:


> Tell me: would this game have been a two point victory if Orton started (who I'll more than admit is putrid quarterback). No pick off run back for six. Also, the coaching staff would have focussed more on the runin the first half, like they should have. The game wouldn't have been as cloase -- end of story. I would put at even money that the Bears even score more points. It's not about the best players, but the best match.
> 
> I don't want Orton to start. I want an uber-conservative vet who'll sit back, let us run the ball, and push the defense to do their thing. Theres no chance in hell this team does anything come the playoffs unless Rex reigns in his game.


and he has 10 more games to do so. he doens't even have 16 games under his belt.
and there's only a slim chance that this team wins a superbowl with an uber conservative vet (and zero chance we win one with orton). in the playoffs' knockout format, our defense would have to be perfect in every game. you need other facets of your team to be able to step up when the defense allows steve smith 200 yards.
grossman gives you a better chance, and he's already shown vast improvement.
now if grossman doesn't, as you put it, reign it in, then we don't make it. but he's a better bet.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I don't want Orton to start. I want an uber-conservative vet who'll sit back, let us run the ball, and push the defense to do their thing.



In other words, you want Lovie Smith, Ron Turner and Wade Wilson replaced.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

paxman said:


> and he has 10 more games to do so. he doens't even have 16 games under his belt.
> and there's only a slim chance that this team wins a superbowl with an uber conservative vet (and zero chance we win one with orton). in the playoffs' knockout format, our defense would have to be perfect in every game. you need other facets of your team to be able to step up when the defense allows steve smith 200 yards.
> grossman gives you a better chance, and he's already shown vast improvement.
> now if grossman doesn't, as you put it, reign it in, then we don't make it. but he's a better bet.


Perhaps. I don't disagree with anything you've written. I just wish Grossman wasn't such a bad match for our team as constituted.


----------



## JonH818 (Aug 31, 2006)

If you are going to put Orton in as QB, you might as well have Martynas Adriuskevicius start as QB for the Bears. At least he could look over the Offensive and Defensive line.

:banana:


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> Tell me: would this game have been a two point victory if Orton started (who I'll more than admit is putrid quarterback). No pick off run back for six. Also, the coaching staff would have focussed more on the runin the first half, like they should have. The game wouldn't have been as cloase -- end of story. I would put at even money that the Bears even score more points. It's not about the best players, but the best match.
> 
> I don't want Orton to start. I want an uber-conservative vet who'll sit back, let us run the ball, and push the defense to do their thing. Theres no chance in hell this team does anything come the playoffs unless Rex reigns in his game.


I don't agree with your logic that Orton means no picks. Orton had 4 in one half of a game last season. 

Its just as probable that the Bears would've ended up losing 6-9 or something like that as it is that they would have won by a greater margin. There was little chance the team would have scored more than the 19 points they managed with Grossman, seeing as how they managed more than 20 only 3 times with Orton.

Grossman should be the guy because he can make plays when the team needs plays to be made. The play calling is what needs to change and become more conservative.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The running game has been the focus of every defense against the Bears, if we had just ran in the first half I doubt we'd have made a feild goal, Jones was averaging less than 2 yards a carry in the first half. 

If Orton was at the helm against Min. maybe he wouldn't have thrown the pick, but we also would not have scored 4 times, probably not even 3 times. Orton threw 9 touchdowns and 13 picks last year in 15 games, Rex's 6 and 3 in 3 may not continue to be as positive, but right now I don't see any reason to be thinking about another QB. Rex had some bad plays, but he made up for them when all was said and done. 

Going the conservative rout is not going to take this team to the next level. The Ravens and Bucs won it that way, butthat said Dilfer and BJohnson are way better than Orton. Consider even those guys helped their team put up 34 and 48 points in the superbowl. Since 73' no teams have won the superbowl w/o scoring at least 20 points, which was quite a feat last season with Orton. We had the best d and one of the best running games in the league last year and 2 years before that, but all we got is bounced out of the first round. 

Right now Rex is on pace to have a better season than Griese has had since his third season, although 2 years ago with Tampa he was close, he didn't finish the season. Griese hasn't played a full season for four years. He has always produced but the injuries have me thinking he is right where he should be, as a quality backup. Greise might be a happy medium, but Grossman is our guy for the future and for now looks like the best guy for the present.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> Tell me: would this game have been a two point victory if Orton started (who I'll more than admit is putrid quarterback). No pick off run back for six. Also, the coaching staff would have focussed more on the runin the first half, like they should have. The game wouldn't have been as cloase -- end of story. I would put at even money that the Bears even score more points. It's not about the best players, but the best match.
> 
> I don't want Orton to start. I want an uber-conservative vet who'll sit back, let us run the ball, and push the defense to do their thing. Theres no chance in hell this team does anything come the playoffs unless Rex reigns in his game.



Wow. I couldn't disagree more. The Bears finally have a three dimensional team. The fact that opponents have to actually now respect the Bears' passing attack is going to make them much tougher to defend. 3-0 right now is no mistake. This team has a legit shot to make some noise in the playoffs for the first time in a long time.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Wow. I couldn't disagree more. The Bears finally have a three dimensional team. The fact that opponents have to actually now respect the Bears' passing attack is going to make them much tougher to defend. 3-0 right now is no mistake. This team has a legit shot to make some noise in the playoffs for the first time in a long time.


 Neither was Orton's 9-2 record after his first four games. Ortons a sucky quarterback -- and it goes to show how little this team needs offensive fireworks. The Bears' special teams and defense are so good that they will score points themselves. You really need a quarterback who isn't going to lose you a game -- Grossman isn't that guy right now. He could be by the end of the season. But now, he isn't.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> Neither was Orton's 9-2 record after his first four games. Ortons a sucky quarterback -- and it goes to show how little this team needs offensive fireworks. The Bears' special teams and defense are so good that they will score points themselves. You really need a quarterback who isn't going to lose you a game -- Grossman isn't that guy right now. He could be by the end of the season. But now, he isn't.



But the rub is this: Orton just might lose you the game...and he sure as hell isn't going to win it. I can understand if you think Rex is a bad fit for the squad (though I disagree), but saying the Bears would be a better team with Orton as QB is just nutty. Griese, OK maybe. Orton? No way. Last season I never thought of us as contenders because of him, despite our incredible defense and solid running game. At some point you need your QB to make a few plays for you if you want to be a Super Bowl team. That's why Lovie rolled the dice with Rex LAST season IMO, and even though it didn't work out, I think it was the right call.

Maybe the playcalling should be more conservative, but is it the chicken or the egg? Has Rex thrown as much as he has because the Bears think they're a throwing offense, or because Jones hasn't gotten it going? I don't know. At least when we run twice for no gain and it's 3rd and long, there's a chance we'll convert. With Orton we might as well have sent the punt team in on 3rd down and gotten it over with. Yeah, Rex needs to learn more discipline, but dammit he makes plays. As a Bears fan who has suffered through Cade McNown, Steve Stenstrom, Moses Moreno, Henry Burris, Shane Matthews, Kordell Stewart, Chad Hutchinson, Kyle Orton, Rick Mirer, 59-year-old Chris Chandler...I'm happy to have a QB who isn't a joke.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

The Bears need Grossman because it takes away the fear of if an opponent goes up more than a fg on us the game is over. Thats why Orton cant be our QB ,because he gives us no hope of recovering from the occcasional defensive breakdown or fluke play that gives the other team that 3+ pt lead .

the league until the bears earn their respect views the bears offense as run only and thats how they play it. The bears are passing more now to open things up while the weather is good so that in Nov/Dec on the road out east the offense will have confidence in that passing game. These situations are helping to develop chemistry and experience for which there are no practice simulations for.

I mean just where is Grossman supposed to get live game experience ?


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

I don't know why people are thinking Rex is such a bad fit for this team...



I had taped the Minn game Sunday (it's the first game that was actually on TV here in Jersey this season) and watching the 2nd half over again, Grossman really made a lot of good throws. yes, his interception from the endzone was godawful. utterly putrid. 

but you have be able to live with a mistake or two, if most of the time he's completing 12-15 yard passes. which he was. fairly consistently! Right after giving away the lead in the game, he took the helm and confidently marched down field with numerous quick strikes on the deep-in route. it was beautiful. unfortunately that drive stalled because we couldn't convert a 3rd and 1 when Jones got stuffed for no gain somewhere around Minn's 35 yard line. had to settle for the field goal to make it a one-point game.

obviously the coaching staff has faith in Rex - but even more importantly, the players seem to have faith in him too -- and it shows when they can move down the field like that. I'm really starting to believe Rex is the best guy to have on the field. all I want to see is the running game return to last year's form, and I'm convinced this team is among the elite in the NFL - legit Superbowl contenders flat out.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Tell me: would this game have been a two point victory if Orton started (who I'll more than admit is putrid quarterback). No pick off run back for six. Also, the coaching staff would have focussed more on the runin the first half, like they should have. The game wouldn't have been as cloase -- end of story. I would put at even money that the Bears even score more points.


The Bears would have lost the game with Orton at quarterback. Orton is a BAD quarterback. Last year he threw 9 touchdown passes and 13 interceptions, had a completion percentage of 51.6%, and had a quarterback rating of 59.7. This season Grossman has 6 touchdown passes and 3 interceptions, a completion percentage of 64.9, and a quarterback rating of *100.9*! THIS IS ABSURD. Should I even mention yards per attempt?

Now if you have an issue with playcalling, that's a completely different argument. The Bears can be a run first offense with Grossman at quarterback as well. Don't let that argument spill into the quarterback situation.

Last year's team won despite Kyle Orton, aided by a ridiculously soft schedule.



> It's not about the best players, but the best match.


A bad quarterback isn't a good match for anything.



> I don't want Orton to start. I want an uber-conservative vet who'll sit back, let us run the ball, and push the defense to do their thing. Theres no chance in hell this team does anything come the playoffs unless Rex reigns in his game.


Have you seen Thomas Jones' per carry average this season? 3.0. If the Bears were employing a run first offense against the Vikings, you would have been watching 3 and outs for most of the day. 

FWIW, I'm not even a Bears fan. But I thought the whole Orton vs. Grossman thing was absurd last season...it's even crazier this season.

If you're going to use 9-2 as your argument that this team would be better off with Orton, I will reply with 3-0. And your claim that this game was closer with Grossman playing than it would have been with Orton playing would be completely irrelevant.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Teams are coming in with the notion of stuffing the run and making the Bears win in the air. So far the Bears have called their bluff.

Once they start respecting Rex more then we'll see the run game take off. I think Cedrick B. has a burr in his saddle and is due for a couple of big games down the line.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

The Truth said:


> The Bears would have lost the game with Orton at quarterback. Orton is a BAD quarterback. Last year he threw 9 touchdown passes and 13 interceptions, had a completion percentage of 51.6%, and had a quarterback rating of 59.7. This season Grossman has 6 touchdown passes and 3 interceptions, a completion percentage of 64.9, and a quarterback rating of *100.9*! THIS IS ABSURD. Should I even mention yards per attempt?
> 
> Now if you have an issue with playcalling, that's a completely different argument. The Bears can be a run first offense with Grossman at quarterback as well. Don't let that argument spill into the quarterback situation.
> 
> ...



This is better than I ever could have hoped to say it. It's the absolute truth.


:clap:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

The Truth said:


> The Bears would have lost the game with Orton at quarterback. Orton is a BAD quarterback. Last year he threw 9 touchdown passes and 13 interceptions, had a completion percentage of 51.6%, and had a quarterback rating of 59.7. This season Grossman has 6 touchdown passes and 3 interceptions, a completion percentage of 64.9, and a quarterback rating of *100.9*! THIS IS ABSURD. Should I even mention yards per attempt?


How bout the five or six times on Sunday when made a horrid choice and threw directly at the Vikings secondary. How many of these were actually caught, but nullified by a flag? Rex, for better and worse, is a gunslinger. Keep attacking Orton, because it is the only way skew what is my central point: the Bears will not survive a run in the playoffs unless Rex significantly changes his approach to the game. 



> Now if you have an issue with playcalling, that's a completely different argument. The Bears can be a run first offense with Grossman at quarterback as well. Don't let that argument spill into the quarterback situation.


I also have a issues with the playcalling. 



> Last year's team won despite Kyle Orton, aided by a ridiculously soft schedule.


I agree. And they were always in position to win inspite of him -- because he didn't gamble and take chances that would put the team down.



> Have you seen Thomas Jones' per carry average this season? 3.0. If the Bears were employing a run first offense against the Vikings, you would have been watching 3 and outs for most of the day.


By the second quarter the Bears' line was getting decent push, and the team was relying way too much on the pass. They tried to refocus on the run coming out of halftime again, and it was successful, but abandoned it again as the game went along. This is the coaching staff's fault. They should be coaching to their strengths -- and have a better idea of how their strengths are going to win. But that's another problem with Rex. He takes the team away from what they do best. 



> If you're going to use 9-2 as your argument that this team would be better off with Orton, I will reply with 3-0. And your claim that this game was closer with Grossman playing than it would have been with Orton playing would be completely irrelevant.


I don't follow?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

GB said:


> Teams are coming in with the notion of stuffing the run and making the Bears win in the air. So far the Bears have called their bluff.
> 
> Once they start respecting Rex more then we'll see the run game take off. I think Cedrick B. has a burr in his saddle and is due for a couple of big games down the line.


Bingo. Once the weather gets cold, you'll see a lot more commitment to the run. Rex has impressed me the past few games. Its showing other teams that you can't just stack 9-10 in the box and expect to stop our offense. We're making the Super Bowl this season. There I said it.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> How bout the five or six times on Sunday when made a horrid choice and threw directly at the Vikings secondary. How many of these were actually caught, but nullified by a flag? Rex, for better and worse, is a gunslinger. Keep attacking Orton, because it is the only way skew what is my central point: the Bears will not survive a run in the playoffs unless Rex significantly changes his approach to the game.


I'm not really arguing your last point. I'm just arguing that this team would not be better off with Orton at qb.




> I agree. And they were always in position to win inspite of him -- because he didn't gamble and take chances that would put the team down.


He still threw interceptions. I think there is a misconception out there that Orton was a low risk, low reward player. He still threw interceptions, had a terrible completion percentage, and made a ton of mistakes. I'm not sure why people remember him as this minimal mistake game manager. He didn't do anything well, and did most things poorly. If he was a steadier player than Rex, why was his completion percentage so low? Why was his touchdown to interception ratio so low? It seems to me that if the kid wasn't taking the risks that Grossman takes, he would have a higher completion percentage and higher touchdown to interception ratio, and he's not even in the same ballpark in either statistic.




> By the second quarter the Bears' line was getting decent push, and the team was relying way too much on the pass. They tried to refocus on the run coming out of halftime again, and it was successful, but abandoned it again as the game went along. This is the coaching staff's fault. They should be coaching to their strengths -- and have a better idea of how their strengths are going to win. But that's another problem with Rex. He takes the team away from what they do best.


I'm not disputing play calling, but I have to ask how this is Grossman's fault? He takes them away from what they do best? I don't follow.




> I don't follow?


I was responding to this statement from you earlier in the thread:



such sweet thunder said:


> either was Orton's 9-2 record after his first four games.


And now that I re-read that post, I'm not exactly sure what you were getting at. At first I understood it to be that you were defending Orton because of the Bears 9-2 record to begin last season.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> Keep attacking Orton, because it is the only way skew what is my central point: the Bears will not survive a run in the playoffs unless Rex significantly changes his approach to the game.


That was the premise of your first post...you wondered aloud if the Bears would be better off with Orton. And the reasoning was that he was ultra-conservative and didn't make mistakes. 

My point, and The Truth's, is that he DID make a fair amount of mistakes and made almost nothing good happen either. Rex makes mistakes, yes. But he also makes plays in the passing game. I'll take a half-full glass over an empty glass, so to speak, every time. 

Like I said, if you're going to argue the point you're arguing, using Orton as the example of the type of QB you want is kind of a head-scratcher. I said earlier that, given how good the bears d is, and the fact the offense has at least some balance, I could see Griese being a Brad Johnson-type of caretaker and I could see us winning big that way. But not Orton. You don't make it to the Super Bowl when you can only beat teams 10-6. Those Ravens and Bucs teams that won it were capable of hanging a decent number on the other team even with their average QBs. With Orton, the Bears are not.

I'll grant you, Grossman could have an awful game in the playoffs and lose the game for us. That's definitely a possibility, considering that even QBs as good as Peyton can melt down in the playoffs and Rex is an inexperienced gunslinger. But considering the results so far, I don't see why you're so sure that it's a certainty, any more than it would be a certainty that we'd lose 20-3 with Orton at QB in a playoff game.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> That was the premise of your first post...you wondered aloud if the Bears would be better off with Orton. And the reasoning was that he was ultra-conservative and didn't make mistakes.
> 
> My point, and The Truth's, is that he DID make a fair amount of mistakes and made almost nothing good happen either. Rex makes mistakes, yes. But he also makes plays in the passing game. I'll take a half-full glass over an empty glass, so to speak, every time.
> 
> ...


Maybe SST can clarify, but I don't think he's actually arguing that he wants Orton to play. I think he's arguing that the Bears would be better with Orton instead of Grossman, but he would rather have a conservative veteran (Griese) than either of them.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

The Truth said:


> Maybe SST can clarify, but I don't think he's actually arguing that he wants Orton to play. I think he's arguing that the Bears would be better with Orton instead of Grossman, but he would rather have a conservative veteran (Griese) than either of them.


I think that's true, but he led off saying he still thought Orton was a better fit than Rex, which I think is crazy. I'll stop hammering on that, though. I just feel like it kind of derailed his otherwise-valid argument off the bat. Even with the Bears' fast start, I still think an argument could be made that Griese gives the team the best chance to win a SB this season. But not Orton. Dear god, not Orton.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Everyone worried about the Bears running game/passing game/Rex Grossman owes it to themselves to read Mike Mulligans excellent column in todays Suntimes. 

Its so good I can't pick out one sentence or paragraph to quote that would summarize the whole. Change can be nerve-wracking sure, but this looks like a good change that we're seeing.

Other notes: 

Muhsin has produced a first down on *52* 3rd down receptions in a row.

Grossman is averaging a league high 8.82 yards per pass attempt.

Lovie Smith has a better record through 36 games than Ditka did (by 1 game  )

Robbie Gould leads all kickers with 37 points, 30 of them from his 10-for-10 on field goals.

Words being used to describe Cedric Benson: High-maintenance, fragile psyche, needed, body is ahead of heart and mind...

~


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Rex proving me wrong -- and I like it. He looked downright solid in the first half. Still looking good in the second if not a little reckless. Whatever, he's up three touchdowns.


----------



## Bulls rock your socks (Jun 29, 2006)

Bears 2007 Champs!! same with my sig Bulls too


----------



## JonH818 (Aug 31, 2006)

JonH818 said:


> I don't think that it's fair to blame the backs for being unproductive. The offensive line is doing a great job protecting grossman but when it comes to opening holes for the backs, they are doing a horrible job. If you look at all of the running plays that they have called, the offensive line has only opened up a couple small holes that Thomas barely squeezed through. I can understand if one back is gaining more yards than the other but both of them are averaging 3 yards a carry. If we had LaDainian Tomlinson right now, he would be averaging the same. No matter how strong or fast you are, there has to be some running room to be productive and right now, the backs are getting none. I really think that by game 4, the running game will be back to last year.


GO THOMAS JONES!!!!!


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

The Bears killed the SeaHawks Rex Grossman no INT's!!! He's looking better and better if you ask me! :banana:


----------



## NeTs15VC (Aug 16, 2005)

I told all my friends and many people on the internet he will be this years breakout player, he was very unlucky his first three seasons but all he needs to do is be healthy and he'll take this team far, and I really like what there doing right now


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I'm still not sure, for all of his success, if he is a better match for this team than Orton. I wonder if it's just better to play uber-conserative, not make any turnovers, and let the defense do their thing. Especially come playoff time, I want something more consistent to pair with this team.


Bump. 

SST, you get props for this. Bears fans, you have to admit that with Rex at the helm, we could go 14-2, have the best record in the league, and lose our first playoff game...again.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

yesterdays game certainly provides some fodder for those who want Greise at the helm. 

basically what last night proved to me was the defense alone is good enough to win on the mediocre teams of the league. 
but we're going to need some offense to compete against the good ones.
I'm not ready to write off Rexy boy just yet. He had a bad game. a really really bad game. but I think that was to be expected during the year, as he's still very inexperienced in live-game action.
Odds are he'll stink it up for another game this year as well... hopefully not when it comes to the playoffs, but it's something that can happen again.
But I'm confident he'll rebound in two weeks. the bye week really came at just the right time this year. that kind of a game, while it's great to get the W, will give the team motivation to work harder and not have any more lapses like that.

I just hope that the Cardinals first half doesn't become the blueprint for other teams to beat our defense. I don't know what it is about the screen play -- but the Bears sure to suck at it. they can never seem to execute them on offense, and have a lot of problems stopping them on defense. 
let's hope Lovie and Ron get them to work on their tackling during the extra week of practice


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I look at it this way. His game last night made his overall season stats look more normal, more of what we expected from Rex Grossman. But three things:

1. If he's going to throw all of his interceptions every sixth game and then play exceptionally well the five games in between, I'll certainly take it. 

2. We still WON the game.

3. The bye week is next week and I think it's huge because it provides a break so we don't get into a rut.

That's what's insane. I don't think anyone is ready to write off Rex. The O-line is as responsible for his fumbles as he is, and while his second INT was straight up terrible, his first ones just looked like he was trying too hard. Trying too hard doesn't mean you don't have the talent to pull it off.

I will say that Leinart looks good, and his receivers look REALLY good. I don't know if this stat is available, but I'll bet their YAC numbers are really high from last night's game.

Anyway. Grossman is here to stay, and I think we'll see a big bounce back after the bye week.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I won't go as far as cosigning the suggestion that Orton be put in, but I definitely wouldn't argue with Griese being put in. Grossman almost singlehandedly lost that game, but I wouldn't have liked my chances with Orton in there either with the defense giving up 7 quick points. 

So yeah, Grossman+pass first play calling could defintely mean the end for the Bears, but with Orton we'd be pretty screwed too against any team that could score a couple times early. Griese is best compromise between conservatism and still being able to pass downfield if the need presents itself.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

one can't just focus on last night's game and totally ignore how
awesome rex has been thru the first 5 games.

so he's no mvp, ok. there's very little ground to bring up griese, until we see
how rex bounces back.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

One stinkbomb isn't going to knock me off Rex's bandwagon, but it does illustrate the point that the Bears need to do more to establish the run from here on out. I understand the philosophy that we want other teams to have to respect our passing game to open up the running game, but I think we've been overplaying that card so far. Even if we have to go 3 and out a couple times in the 1st quarter, Jones needs to get some early work. If he starts running well, that'll open up playaction and other things downfield. I still like Rex (despite his single-handed destruction of my fantasy week), but the coaching staff shouldn't put the entire game in his hands just yet. He's shown that he isn't afraid to make tough throws and that's great, but this team should still consider itself run-first.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm willing to live or die with Rexie this year. I never expected this Bear team to be considered the best team in the league. And we are...er...maybe we still are, but we certainly were before last night. Rex wasn't just the game manager of a good team, he was a big reason why we got to that level. He has quarterbacked us to four huge blowouts, struggled again the Vikes on the road but threw a game winning touchdown pass with under 2 minutes to go, and played a game so bad last night it harkened back to the Moses Moreno era. 

Four good games, one average game, one terrible game. Yup, I'll take those odds from a Bear quarterback, even as I accept the fact that Rex can be very inconsistent.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Four good games, one average game, one terrible game. Yup, I'll take those odds from a Bear quarterback, even as I accept the fact that Rex can be very inconsistent.


I just wanted to say that I don't feel any redemption after yesterday's game. I'm certainly not happy Grossman played poorly, and hope he doesn't have any repeats; though I suspect very much that he will. My only point was as you stated above, Rex is going to continue to be inconsistent; some of it is his lack of experience, but much of it is his approach to the game. For better and worse, he has been compared to Brett Farve. In my eyes, he has more in common with Favre after yesterday's game than ever. 

I believe the Bears could win a Superbowl with Rex at the helm, which should be taken as a high praise. But I think you have to take the mentality that DMD espouse's above: he's going to have ugly games, and those games may fall during the playoffs. 

Babble-on: I don't want Orton back in as starting quarterback, but I do think that Rex isn't a great match for this team. The Bears are too good this year -- they don't need fireworks from their quarterback. They would be better served by steady consistent and conservative play; the defense will do the rest. 

I'm not out to knock anyone who supports Rex as their guy, but I think as DMD said, you have to be "willing to live and die" with him. You can't complain that you didn't see this coming, if the Bears have another first round exit where Rex throws your entire season down the drain trying to make plays that he shouldn't.


----------

