Bwahahaha! Go Vikings.

Who? Randy Orton?

NECK! BEARD!
NECK! BEARD!
NECKBEARD NECKBEARD NECKBEARD!

WOOOOO!!!

Can't be surprised by this. Grossman has been high risk and lower and lower reward since that infamous night in Arizona (and it was always coming). Orton seems to have brought a better attitude as well.

Maybe Orton can be the next Brees; a Purdue QB exception that proves the rule...did I just type that. Hope springs eternal Bears fans.

While I'm confident this season is quite comfortably teetering on the edge of a giant toilet, I am interested to see how Orton will perform when Turner is calling a professional offense for him, not that one-receiver max-protect abomination he used in 2005.

After watching Grossman versus the Seahawks, they're definitely making the right decision on "Grossman vs. Orton." Now, "Orton vs. any other quarterback that was available before camp," I don't agree with so much.

But Grossman's issues vs. the Seahawks really weren't entirely the fault of the offensive line. Grossman just looked shell shocked - every time he went down with a sack, there was a receiver wide open within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage.

Yeah, sure, the offensive line needed to block better for him, but Grossman had a safe hot read on each of those plays, and didn't take it. Grossman just looked really, really bad.

Incomplete passes > interceptions and fumbles

Anyone have a list of free agent QB's current available?

Nathan,
Jim Sorgi, Quinn Gray, and Jared Lorenzen.

Oh wait a minute, they might not be available... just yet.

Week 1: Neckbeard vs the Hefty Lefty. All over the country, TV sets are thrown out windows after INTs on 4 consecutive plays.

God, I hope I am joking.

It says in PFP08 that Orton single-handedly kept a great team out of the Superbowl when he played as a rookie. That is at least a little unfair as he did help them to secure the first (or was it second?) seed before being yanked for the last few games of the season and the playoffs.

To quote Samuel Johnson,

"Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea."

re11
Yes, grosmans played in playoofs that year, so how can Rex Orton be the guy who kept team from SuperBowl?

If you play in fantasy football league that uses defensibe players you should draft cornerbacks and safeties from NFC North. All kids of crappy Qbs in that division. Very good chance DBs in there gets lots of picks.
Look at all the crap-
Tarvaris Jackson
Gus Frerret
Aaron Rodgers
brian Broom (good, but still a rookie so will struggle if he plays)
Jon Kitna
Drew Staton (2nd year guy who is like a rookie becausue he was on Ir last year)
Rex Grossman
Krly Orton

Re 10 - "The Hefty Lefty" - priceless.

I can't wait 'til the season starts and we have something else to talk about. I'm not saying that the coverage of this situation is inaccurate or even out of proportion, but as a Bears fan I'm just really, really sick of hearing about it.

(I hear a thousand voices in chorus saying: "Then don't click on the damn link!" But you know I am powerless to resist.)

Look, I can understand Ahgelo's qb personnel decisions, if looked at in isolation; it's really hard to add quality qb talent, and as a Vikings fan, I'm sympathetic. In the context of Angelo's total roster construction, I just don't get it.

I mean, you are talent- deficient at qb, offensive line, and runnning back, and the response is to draft a guy with a history of back problems in the first round, to start at left ot, let your most talented wide receiver go elsewhere, stick with your qb talent, and count on a rookie rb, while spending a bunch of guaranteed cash on two linebackers, one who is thirty years old, with a significant back injury history also?

#16, I can't argue with the rest of your points Will but spending money on Briggs and Urlacher isn't a mistake. I have a far bigger problem with taking defensive players that can't get on the field in the mid-rounds of recent drafts when the team clearly had an old offensive line and needed help at RB, QB, and WR. And they should have picked Brohm or Henne in the second even if Forte is great.

The thing that amazes me is that people keep saying "well, who could the Bears have gotten that would be clearly better than Orton/Grossman?"

First, split the question up. Orton might be about replacement-level or so. So I don't think he should be tossed on the scrap yet. He's there, he appears to knows the system, and you're not likely to get anyone significantly better easily. Even if he's slightly below replacement level, eh, there's some advantage to keeping a QB who knows the system.

But if one of your QBs is replacement level, you really, really want the other one to be at least at that level. A dropoff to replacement level after an injury is bad, a dropoff to "bad" is even worse.

Grossman's not replacement level at this point. He's just broken and useless. There's absolutely no way he should be on the Bears roster this year.

So the fact that they didn't bring in Quinn Gray, Leftwich, Culpepper, Pennington - it's nuts. Any of them would've been better than Grossman. And those are just the recent ones - go back earlier, and Mark Brunell, possibly even Trent Green, or any number of other QBs who've changed teams this offseason - any of those guys would've been an improvement over Grossman.

I agree with #17 about recent drafts. 2007 was particularly arrogant -- I mean, Dan Bazuin in the 2nd round when DE is probably your deepest position already?

#16, Will Allen

I am one of many Bears fans who are unable to understand why at least one of Garcia, Brees, Kitna or Warner aren't playing in Chicago. Maybe they wanted to see if their 1st round QB was going to be any good, whatever the reason at the time, hindsight has proven the decisions made to be poor ones. Having said that there were concerns about all those players when they were able to get into the market.

As for keeping guys like Briggs and Urlacher, they didn't exactly give Urlacher a farcical quantity of money and the quality of play Briggs brings is well above what the Bears are paying him. I would have like the Bears to keep Berrian, but not for the amount of cash the Vikes paid. I would rather Angelo gave the money to top notch players he knows will produce, than took a punt on any of the rather poor crop of QBs available this past offseason.

And Tampa trades Griese back to Chicago for a 2nd round pick. Wait, a first! Two firsts plus Lance Briggs! And . . . and . . .

OK, I need to calm down. Hey, tell you what, you can have Bruce Gradkowski for free.

Bruce Crapkowski

#13,
Kitna has thrown for over 4000 yards two straight years. And every Lion fan will tell you Calvin Johnson looks unstoppable so far in preseason.
-4 catches for 78 yards in 2 series vs. NYG
-3 catches for 76 yards and a TD in 1 quarter vs. CIN

Well, my remarks about Urlacher and Briggs were a little off base, in that the Bears have a ton of cap space, so I suspect they'll write off a ton of the guaranteed cash this year, meaning it will have little future impact on cap flexibility.

I guess I meant in more in terms of incongruity; effort is made to have talent at linebacker, yet the offensive line, qb, running backs, and wide receiver are left to rot. What is a more critical area for an NFL team, especially one that runs a 4-3 defense, offensive line or linebacker, and outside linebacker at that? Especially when your qbs are suspect at best? Does Angelo plan on winning 10 games by the score of 13-10?

Hey, Raiderjoe, how dare you foul his name like that.

It's Crapsuckski.

#24, Will

To be fair to Angelo, I suspect that if he had a Pro Bowl QB on his roster he would offer him a new contract.

Also, yes I supect that Angelo would take winning 10 games with a score of 13-10. He has been in charge of personnel for enough teams who have done it to try it again. I would agree that none of these teams won the Superbowl.

I think the problem the Bears have run into at QB isn't so much that they haven't tried to solve the problem, just that the players they have taken a punt on haven't panned out. There are a vast mulitude to pick from, but they aren't all Angelo's fault. The Bears have spent two first round picks on QBs in the last ten years (I have no idea how this compares to league average, but would be shocked if it were too bad), so it isn't as though they haven't tried at all. When you do whiff on one of those guys it is important to realise your mistake as quickly as possible. This is made more difficult if the players in question are injury prone. I am not sufficiently knowledgable about college ball to know whether either McNown or Grossman were hit by the injury bug at school, but the time both guys spent in the training room must have delayed the process of evaluating them. Even worse, the incomplete grade on the players on the roster will have a distorting effect on how your team approaches free agency, providing a further pox on your franchise. In short; if you are going to draft a turkey, draft a healthy turkey, at least you will know pretty quickly whether or not they are a turkey.

'or just injured.'

The above needs to be added to the end of the last post.(#26)

Jimmy, I know Angelo would take such a record; does he, however, realize how unlikely one is to be successful with such an approach, given the rules of the NFL, and the greater variability in defensive performance? Like I said, I appreciate how hard it is to find a good qb. What about the rest of the offense? What would possess a guy to say, "Well, my qbs and running backs haven't shown anything. My best wide receiver has left. I know! I'll count on a rookie starting at left offensive tackle to improve my aging offensive line, which sucked last year!"

24 (Will Allen):
Angelo's handling of the QB position over the past ~3-4 years is simply unforgivable. Each decision, in isolation, may be somewhat defensible, but in aggregate, he has demonstrated that he simply doesn't care about the position.
His handling of the o-line over the past offseason in particular was absolutely atrocious. We simply don't have a starting LG on the roster, and never have.

Blame the 2000 Ravens. They won with Dilfer, and Angelo is apparently obsessed with recreating their performance with the Bears. Even though his defense isn't as good, he lacks the offensive line to give a mediocre QB time, and, most importantly, he doesn't have Matt Stover, who was the offensive juggernaut of that 2000 team.

I'm assuming that Angelo is simply unable to admit he's wrong, and is obsessed with proving he can win with his godawful QBs. If he picks up Pennington or Leftwich or somebody else, he looks like an idiot (well, more like it), because he's admitting he screwed up. Instead, he'll ruin a couple seasons worth of football because he won't suck it up and admit things aren't working as they are.

To be fair to Angelo, he has already proved he can win with his "godawful" quarterbacks to the tune of two division titles, two #1-2 playoff seeds and an NFC Championship. What he seems to want to do (or at least be prepared to do) this year is to prove he can win with godawful Quarterbacks, a godawful offensive line and godawful receivers.

That one, he may have less success with.

Incidentally, doesn't Robbie Gould compare well to Matt Stover?

It's way too early to say that drafting Chris Williams was a mistake. Dan Pompei (Chicago Tribune) interviewed the 13 front offices that took an OL in the first 3 rds of the 2008 draft. Nine of them did NOT medically downgrade CW because of his back. Two dinged him a half to one and half rounds, while two heavily penalized him. It seems that the ex-ante consensus was not as negative as the Monday morning quarterbacking is today.

To #17 / #19's points, not drafting an OL in 2007 when your line's average age is 31 is beyond arrogant. Bazuin (2007 - 2nd), Okwo (2007 - 3rd), and Wolfe (2007 - 3rd) are all bubble candidates to be cut this year and I wouldn't be shocked if all three are gone.

Isn't Simms expected to come available pretty soon? I heard that he's likely the odd man out in Tampa. While he's no world beater, he at least has shown he's competent, and as such would be an improvement to the Bears roster...

After last Sunday, I expect Matt Cassel to be free pretty soon, but I don't think Bears fans would want old Rusher McFumbles...

I agree Pennington would have easily been an upgrade, but the windy city of Chicago ( outdoor stadium) is about the worst place for a weak armed QB. Penny in the warth of Miami or a dome is a much better fit.

Culpepper and Leftwhich are just other peoples trash.

I believe Angelo looked at what was available, and thought Maybe Pepper or some of these guys were an upgrade, maybe not, but do you want to spend years trying teach them the system to these guys etc?

I think he is giving his guys ( even though they have their problems) a fair chance. If they fail this year, I fully expect them to draft a QB, trade for a QB etc. Angelo isn't a bad GM.

Chicago doesn't need a Peyton Manning. If Lovie brings that defense back to 06' form, you have those strong special teams, even an average QB could work. They could win a title via the 2000 Ravens, the 2002 Bucs or the 06 Bears ( almost). You don't always need a Manning/Brady etc to win.

So if you have a D+ Quarterback, bringing in a C- isn't always worth the upgrade and headache. Orton hasn't seen THAT much action to have a fair evaluation, and Grossman is probably on a real short leash. Just my 2 cents.

I agree, chip, that it is too early to call Williams a bust. However, counting on a rookie left offensive tackle to markedly improve this offense, with these qbs, wide receivers, runnng backs, and other offensive linemen, seems to be an enormous stretch. This isn't like surrounding Ugoh with all the Colts' Pro Bowlers or Hall of Famers. This is inserting a rookie into one of the most technically demanding positions, in an offense where he can't be compensated for, because hardly anybody else is above average, and a lot of guys are below average. Toss in the history of back problems, and a defense which isn't old, but really which is no longer considered young, meaning they really are not in a position to be patient for a few years, well, Angelo's decisions seem very suspect.

I think people who are slagging off the Bears 07 draft should take a look at the drafts of other teams too. So far it looks like one of the worst drafts that I have ever seen. So you don't like Baziun or Okwo, who the hell would you have taken. I suspect that there are maybe half a dozen players from that draft who are going to be any good who were selected after pick 48 or so. Seriously hardly anyone got many good players out of that draft.

Considering the league as a whole I quite like the Bears draft. Olsen was a decent pick, Baziun may have been a reach but has hardly played, I like Wolfe (but may be the only person who does), Okwo was a need reach, Beekman may start this year (which may not be a good thing), Payne has shown some ability as does Graham and McBride played a lot last year. It isn't a perfect draft, but at least most of the players fit the schemes.

Hasn't Chris Simms suffered enough for the sins of poor pass blockers? Maybe an Ameican Society for the Protection of Spleenless Quartebacks should be organized!

The Bears had to start somewhere in rebuilding their offense - drafting a tackle in the first, a RB in the second and a WR in the third seems like a reasonable way of doing that. Sure, you'd like them to have improved at Guard and at QB too, but I'm happy with the picks they made. I don't think anyone was expecting Chris Williams to be the final piece of the puzzle, but you've got to start somewhere, and you could certainly argue that a rookie LT was more likely to contribute than a rookie WR or rookie QB.

Chicago have spent a lot of money this off-season re-signing their best players - Tommie Harris, Lance Briggs and Devin Hester - to long-term contracts, plus cheaply extending Urlacher's contract. That they didn't find a better QB from somewhere I regret. That they didn't re-sign Berrian I regret, though I'm glad they didn't pay him what Minnesota offered.

From my perspective, the Bears' front office decisions this off-season have - mostly - been a good mix of rewarding their own successful players and getting value. They've maybe left a couple of glaring holes (perhaps literally) on offense, but I think Angelo's made a lot of good decisions this off-season.

There's a lot of interest in Chris Sims. Twenty teams, including three CFL teams, recently were interested enough to a scout to watch Tampa's practices. The Bears weren't one of them. See link from my name.

Charlie, given the amount of cap space the Bears are reported to have, they could have resigned Berrian with minimal impact on future cap flexibility. Why should Bears' fans care about what impact signing Berrian it has on Mrs. McCaskey's heirs? I want Vikings management to burn money like newspaper in a fireplace, as long as they do so without significantly cramping cap space in future years, and as long as the guys they give the money to are better than the other guys who would be on the roster, if the money wasn't burned.

Will, I obviously don't care about McCaskey's heirs saving money.

I just don't think Berrian was worth his contract, and I presume that the money they've saved on him can, and in the future, will, be spent on someone who provides better value. I'll be upset if Virginia just rolls around on a bed covered with it.

I can't find definitive info on the Bears cap, but the link in my name suggests they are up against it after resigning almost everyone except Berrian.

Culpepper and Leftwhich are just other peoples trash.

Who are both better than Grossman. By far.

Pittsburgh brought in Leftwich to replace Charlie Batch, and signed him once they saw his performance. They wanted to sign Culpepper, too, as did Green Bay, but Culpepper wanted more money.

Being "roughly as good as Charlie Batch" doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement - but again, Rex Grossman.

So if you have a D+ Quarterback, bringing in a C- isn’t always worth the upgrade and headache.

Grossman isn't a D+ quarterback. Grossman is an F quarterback. It's not even a good analogy, because if someone was scoring his performance on a 0-100 scale (with 70 being a C) Grossman would get something like "12."

And if you have a "D+" quarterback, you absolutely have to have a second "D+" quarterback. Partly because bad quarterbacks can't protect themselves well, so they're more likely to get injured.

In the game versus the Seahawks, Charlie Frye looked better than Rex Grossman. Quite a bit better, actually - the mistakes Frye made were coachably fixable. Grossman just fell apart whenever he saw a defender coming at him.

That's why he's broken - because the way to beat Rex Grossman is simple. Send the house. Send every defensive lineman and linebacker. There's no risk, because Grossman won't hit any of the open short routes.

#41: ...

I'm kindof at a loss for words. I hadn't even thought about that possibility - that the reason the Bears are screwed at QB isn't because they're brainlessly of the belief that they're OK at that position, but because they botched the salary cap so bad they can't add another one.

Not sure I really buy it, though. Teams don't normally run that close to the cap, and we probably would've heard about it elsewhere.

Again, the Bears have botched the salary cap so badly that they have won 2 division titles and been to the Superbowl in the last 3 years and have now resigned almost all their best players. There are plenty of teams who would like to have made such a mess of things over the last few years.

And as far as Grossman goes, I suppose I just think our new backup QB is better than you do. Which would not be hard.

Charlie, maybe I'm wrong, and the reporting on this issue is nortoriously bad, but I thought I read during Favre-O-Rama that the Bears had 20 million or more in cap space. In any case, the cap rules are certainly convoluted, but I don't believe that every dollar one is below the cap this year carries over to future years. There is an element of use it or lose it involved.

Charlie, maybe the Bears will win nine or more games this year, and everybody will congratulate Angelo. Then again maybe they will win five games, have a huge qb problem, huge offensive line problem, and huge receiver problem, while the defensive personnel gets another year older. If the latter happens, the Bears record of two years ago won't matter much.

Look, I'm not just trying to be anti-Bears here, just because I'm a Vikings fan. I say the same thing about Brad Childress; if he's wrong about Tavaris Jackson, and I think there is more than a 50% chance he is, then Childress likely just wasted his head coaching opportunity.

One thing I'll give Childress and management credit for, however, is being huge believers in solid offensive line play, and making it a priority. Unless a team is running a 3-4 defense, linebackers, especially outside linebackers, don't measure up in terms of being critical to team sucess. I thought the Bears would have been better served by trading Briggs at some point, but of course that assumes they could have gotten value, which is often a bad assumption with regard to the NFL.

I wasn't calling Grossman a D+ and Byron a C-, I was pointing out how sometimes upgrading for slightly more talent isn't always worth shaking the cage.

Rex Grossman had his best year in 2006. He threw for just under 3200 yards, 23 TD, 20 INT and led his team to the SB. He didn't have a lot of talent on Offense, but had a strong D ( the real reason they went to the SB). He also took a beating from the media that year.

Byron Leftwhich on the other hand has never started 16 games in his career. He has also never thrown more than 15 TD passes in a season, he gets sacked at a higher rate than Grossman and fumbles at a higher rate. Neither guy had a lot of talent on offense, but had strong defenses. Byron has probably the worst mechanics of any QB in the league and refuses to change them, " just let Byron be Byron". He is also NOT a team player and was cut from the Jags because they didn't want him around as a distraction. People here thuoght the Jags made a huge mistake, but they turned out to make the right one.

Is Byron an upgrade over Rex? They both get injured too often and aren't very good. You could make a case Byron is better, but is he really the answer? Do you build a team around him? Is Byron going to be the Bears starter in 2013?

If the Bears sign Byron and play him for two years only to find out that he is garbage also, what is the point?

Rex is in the same category as Byron ( although he knows the system and has been in Chicago for years), while Orton hasn't really had a chance.

I am not big on Grossman and Orton either, but Angelo isn't a fool for dropping them for Byron.

Are the Chiefs retarded also for not singing Penny, Pepper or Byron?

WA- The chances of Tavaras Jackson not working out are probably more along the 75% and up range. The biggest mistake Childress and the Vikings made was not bringing in Jeff Garcia for a few years ( you could have even had Jackson on the bench learning). Garica was a made to order WCO QB that would have had the Vikings 11-5 last year.

I think in the 06' Bears run, that Thomas Jones was an underrated player. He was not going to be setting rushing records, but Adrian Peterson is not as good of a player and who knows how the rookie Forte.

A lot of quarterbacks always get excused for poor play because of bad surrounding talent, but I haven't seen Grossman excused yet.

Jackson had a Phenom at RB last year but people were still giving him the excuse that he didn't have receivers.

The Bears had $20m of space until they re-signed Harris, Urlacher, Hester and Gould. As you point out, one of the reasons for redoing the contracts before the season is to use as much cap space as possible this year (or shunt it to next year). If any team has more than $8-10m of cap room at this point in the year and isn't making sure it gets bumped to next year then their front office staff need the sack.

Chris, none of us has a finely calibrated bustometer, which tells us that a guy has a 54.9% chance of flaming out, as opposed to a 76.3% chance. It suffices for me to simply say that I'll be surprised if Jackson ends up having a productive career. As to Garcia, I think it is highly possible that Garcia's agent let the Vikings know that Garcia wasn't interested in having his career opportunities include the exciting
prospect of waiting for Bobby Wade to gain seperation, or Travis Williamson learning to catch a pass. Unless I know for a fact that Childress and Co. made no inquiries with Garcia, I'm not going to hold them responsible.

I'd forgotten all about the Bears extending Gould, despite mentioning him upthread.

Troy Williamson is his name. Even if Garcia didn't like that talent that year, there is free agency and the draft. A lot of people weren't high on Joey Galloway and his grey beard, or a slow Ike Hillard, but he made that work in Tampa.

Do you honestly think that the Vikings were better off and smart for not bringing in Garcia for say 3 years?

I don't like the 50% number because it almost implies that there is a 50-50 chance Jackson will work out. If I went and grabed the starting QB from Alcorn state in the draft, do you think he has a 50-50 shot to work out in the NFL? How about the QB at Florida A&M, James Madison Universy or Indiana University of Pennsylvania?

Rex Grossman had his best year in 2006.

Too bad this is 2008, and the rest of the league has had time to actually see him.

Did you watch him last year at all? Or in the preseason this year? I will throw for 3000+ yards in the NFL before Rex Grossman does again. He's done. Over. Gone.

Grossman was already becoming bad by the end of 2006 as the rest of the league caught up. By 2007, he was just flat awful. At this point, backup defenses can confound him.

You could make a case Byron is better, but is he really the answer?

If you don't believe Leftwich is far better than Grossman, it's just pointless to continue. Grossman isn't even an average backup-level quarterback. On half the teams in the NFL, he'd be a third-string QB. On some of the teams he wouldn't make the roster.

Leftwich is not the answer, and he might not even be significantly better than Orton at this point or on the Bears, but he signed a 1-year contract with Pittsburgh for the vet minimum. Grossman is being paid a lot more, and he's much worse.

But at this point, it doesn't matter, because Leftwich is with the Steelers. At this point, if they can, I'd recommend tossing Grossman and bringing Culpepper in.

Honestly, I have no idea why that hasn't happened already. Culpepper didn't have an awful year last year considering the team he was playing for, and they had similar issues to the Bears this year.

A lot of quarterbacks always get excused for poor play because of bad surrounding talent, but I haven’t seen Grossman excused yet.

Grossman, during the last Seahawks game, had receivers wide open 5 yards in front of him. The receiver was his hot route. The Seahawks showed blitz. Grossman dropped back, and held the ball looking downfield - until the defenders were right in his face, chasing him down for a sack.

The Bears surrounding cast sucks, but Grossman is just as bad as they are at this point. He survived in 2006 feeding off of bad defenses and teams that hadn't seen film of him yet.

I don't even know why I have to argue this. Grossman just got beaten out by Kyle Orton on the same team. If Craig Krenzel came in, I'd bet he'd beat out Grossman too.

If you don’t believe Leftwich is far better than Grossman, it’s just pointless to continue.

Until a week ago, Leftwich couldn't get into camp with any team in the league. Culpepper still can't. I don't think the difference is as great as you think.

As a Bears fan, I am curious as too why someone like Duante
Culpepper or Quinn Gray was not brought into camp. As someone who was a supporter of Grossman in the past I have to say his career is in it's twilight with the Bears. The problem with Grossman is he would have to have the perfect situation. I.E. Great offensive line and a superb running game, with a great defense thrown in for good measure. Ironically a team like the Vikings COULD be a good fit for him because he would not need to " win " games for a team like that and with an offensive line of that caliber, Grossman's strengths ( deep medium to deep passes ) could be exploited. I would not count out Rex TOTALLY from an NFL career but like I said the perfect situation would be needed. Remember after distraous stints in New England and San Franciso, NFL " experts " thought that
Jim Plunkett was a washed up failure but he led the Raiders to two Super Bowl victories in roughly 5 years.

I think Pat has hit the nail on the head when he points out that teams have Grossman's number at this point. It isn't exactly news (or shouldn't be) that Grossman is going to get blitzed if he gets in the game, yet he looks entirely unprepared every time it happens to him. Even the worst defensive coordinator in the league would take all of a couple of seconds to think of a gameplan for him that has a very good chance of forcing him to turn the ball over, probably repeatedly. Under these circumstances I can't see him ever being a productive QB anytime soon.

Well, we know which the Bears preferred from the Giant Douche or the Turd Sandwich.

Chris, did I write something which indicated that I thought they were better off without Garcia? Slavery has been banned in this country by Constitutional Amendment, thus one cannot force Jeff Garcia to throw passes to Bobby Wade or Troy Williamson (I often combine the suckitude of Troy with Travis Taylor, thus mistakenly creating a fifth dimension of bottomless suck), unless Garcia is willing to do so.

All I am saying is that unless I know for a fact that Childress made no inquiries as to whether Garcia was wiling to subject himself to this, I'm not going to state that Childress blew it, for the simple reason that we don't know if it could have been blown.

Don't even think of putting Joey Galloway in the same sentence with the dreck the Vikings had at wide receiver last year.

Charlie, Culpepper could have a job tomorrow if he was willing to not demand that he openly compete for starting job, and a short contract. The Packers made an offer to him, and he turned them down. I doubt they would do so with Grossman, and the Packers have seen both of them extensively.

Will, GB made him that offer before they drafted 2 QBs. Culpepper said he didn't sign with Pittsburgh because of money. In both cases, according to quotes from Culpepper, having to back up the starter didn't seem to be a problem. Link in my name. Other than that, not a sniff for him. Whether or not Green Bay would sign Grossman as a backup if he was available is speculation. What isn't is that no-one has signed Culpepper a few weeks before the season begins.

Yes, Charlie, and that is because Culpepper didn't pick up the pen and sign the contracts put in front of him. That was my point.

Honestly, does it even matter who plays QB this year for the Bears? Whoever it is, he's going to get killed back there. I don't think last year's draft was arrogance, it was pure stupidity given what they had on the roster. They absolutely had to draft minimum one, probably two offensive linemen in the upper rounds and instead they take a defensive end, a linebacker, and a third down back (at best)? With an ancient offensive line?

It pissed me off then and it pisses me off more now.

Culpepper wouldn't sign with the Bears, his knee would probably explode in his second start as 3 defensive linemen annihilate him at the same time.

Yes, Charlie, and that is because Culpepper didn’t pick up the pen and sign the contracts put in front of him. That was my point.

His point was that two of the statements that you made were wrong: if he was willing to not demand that he openly compete for starting job, and a short contract

The problem with both Green Bay and Pittsburgh was that he thought the value was too low. He had no problem backing up Rodgers or Roethlisberger.

To be honest, I don't really disagree, considering Pittsburgh was offering the vet minimum and Green Bay was only offering slightly more. (He apparently thought there were other issues going on with Green Bay as well.)

It's all money with Culpepper.

Are the Chiefs retarded also for not singing Penny, Pepper or Byron?

Huard is roughly replacement level. Croyle is still very young, and presumedly will improve from last year (a year in which he still was better than Rex Grossman).

The situation is entirely different from Chicago's. It's still not good, but if they're hoping that Croyle improves, they don't really need to go out and get a backup better than Huard. Replacement level backups are pretty much the norm.

Bleah, I should point out that I was just trying to clarify things in #63.

As for the reason why Culpepper, Leftwich haven't gotten "a sniff" - it's pretty simple. They have plenty of film and information on Culpepper and Leftwich. They don't need them to be in camp to see how they will respond. All they need to do is see if they're in shape, and if they are, they'll be brought in when needed.

Honestly, does it even matter who plays QB this year for the Bears? Whoever it is, he’s going to get killed back there.

Maybe it doesn't matter much this year, but what about next year? The fact that they didn't draft a QB, so that they could go into next year with at least some chance of having a decent QB that knows their system, and that they've had a chance to evaluate, is mind-boggling.

People keep saying, "but how could they be sure this random new guy would be an improvement over what they've got?" They couldn't. If there were a QB freely available that were guaranteed to be better than replacement level, that QB would get snapped up by some team in need of a QB in an instant, and then that QB would no longer be freely available. If the Bears are waiting for a QB that's guaranteed to succeed in their offense, they will never find a QB, and after Grossman and Orton retire/get cut, they will have to start using a Single Wing offense, or something like that.

But the Bears can't wait until they have someone they know is going to be decent. At this point, they have to settle for someone who might be decent, because that gives them a better chance at having a decent QB than sticking with Grossman/Orton does. They should've drafted a QB in the first two rounds. They could've gotten a QB that had a good chance of becoming a solid starter. But maybe they didn't want to do that, because they had other needs to address. I think it would be crazy of them to overlook QB for any other need on their team, but fine, say they couldn't take a QB early in the draft. The answer isn't "shrug shoulders, accept horrifyingly bad QB situation". They should've at least spent one or two late round picks on QBs, so that they'd have someone to compete with Grossman/Orton, and possibly replace them in time. Sure, a late round QB is a long shot, but a long shot is better than no shot at all.

Look at it this way: Let the probability of either Grossman or Orton becoming a decent QB be X, and the probability of some random 6th round prospect becoming a decent QB be Y. If the Bears just stick with Grossman and Orton, the probability that they will not have a decent QB is 1-X. If they bring in a random 6th round QB, then the probability that they will not have a decent QB is now only (1-X)*(1-Y), which is smaller than 1-X for all possible values of X and Y.

So, at the very least, they would have a better chance at having a decent QB. Maybe not a great chance, but still, at least a better one.

At this point, after stupidly not drafting a QB, their best option would be to take whatever available QBs they think are best, and bringing those QBs in to compete with Grossman/Orton. If none of the new QBs beat out Grossman/Orton (yeah, right), then fine, the Bears can just cut the new guys, and go ahead with Rexy and Whiskey. No harm, no foul. They'd lose nothing by doing this. But not doing this guarantees that their QB situation will continue to suck.

Maybe this'll make more sense. Let's look at three lists of QBs:

1) Relatively "proven commodities". QBs that have played at an average or above average level, and will probably continue to do so.

2) Unproven QBs that will probably become average or above average.

3) Unproven QBs that have a non-trivial chance of becoming average or above average.

Currently, the Bears have nobody from the first two lists, and at most one QB from the third list (and that's being fairly generous to Orton). Ideally, you'd have a guy from the first list as your starter, and a guy from the second list backing him up, but obviously, that's not how things went down. But at the very least, if you don't have anyone from the first two lists, you need to make up for that by having multiple players from the third list.

Fortunately, guys from the third list are usually not too hard to find in the late rounds of the draft, or even free agency. But you need to get as many as you can, and let them compete in training camp. That way, you at least have a fighting chance at ending up with a solid QB.

I think the problem the Bears have run into at QB isn’t so much that they haven’t tried to solve the problem, just that the players they have taken a punt on haven’t panned out. There are a vast mulitude to pick from, but they aren’t all Angelo’s fault. The Bears have spent two first round picks on QBs in the last ten years (I have no idea how this compares to league average, but would be shocked if it were too bad), so it isn’t as though they haven’t tried at all.

They have spent two first round picks, but they've done little else to acquire a good QB. And in the last three years, they've done virtually nothing.

To put things in perspective, consider that, since Brett Favre took over as their starter, Green Bay has spent 10 draft picks on QBs, including a 1st rounder and a 2nd rounder. Chicago, in that same time, has spent 5 draft picks on QBs. Let that sink in. Hall of Fame QB, never missed a start. Yet they still drafted twice as many QBs as Chicago, which had terrible QBs for most of that time, and so had more reason to be drafting a QB.

When you do whiff on one of those guys it is important to realise your mistake as quickly as possible. This is made more difficult if the players in question are injury prone.

Not necessarily. You don't need to know that the QB is bad to know that you should draft another one. Simply not knowing whether a QB is any good is sufficient reason to draft another one.

For instance, look at the Chargers with Drew Brees and Philip Rivers. When Brees was looking questionable after a couple seasons, they drafted Rivers 4th overall. Then, when Brees turned out to be really good, the Chargers had one of the most desirable problems in football: having too many good QBs.

That's what Chicago should have done: when Grossman was too injured to be evaluated, they should've gotten another QB, in case Grossman sucked. And not just a 4th rounder, either.

Look at Green Bay: since they didn't have enough of a chance to evaluate Rodgers, they drafted another QB in the 2nd round (and a 7th rounder, to boot). This gives them a viable backup plan in case Rodgers sucks. The Bears should've had such a plan in place with Grossman. The fact that they didn't, and that they then compounded their mistake by continually failing to correct it after it became painfully obvious that Grossman sucked, is what makes so many people criticize them.

Yeah I dunno Alex "not knowing whether a QB is any good is sufficient reason to draft another one", by that logic the Dolphins (for example) might draft a QB EVERY year because they are not giving their current crop of players a chance to develop. The Bears have a relatively young duo in Grossman/Orton - I'd be inclined to add a veteran to the mix, not another draft pick. Trouble is the current veterans that are available aren't great. Culpepper? Yeah he's currently enjoying the status that the best FA available gets - an unfortunate overinflation of their value.

As for the Bears current options at QB they don't have a lot. If they want a young QB I'd be looking at John Beck as my prime target, possibly Chris Simms or even Drew Stanton (unlikely to be traded though at this stage, but worth an ask). Not great options but hey what do you expect at this stage of the season??

And everyone quotes the Chargers deal with Rivers and Brees as a good thing. In reality the Chargers spent a first rounder on a QB they didn't need (although they got him for a good deal thanks to the Giants), and they then had to cut Brees. The Chargers were losers here IMO.

Rex Grossman has only started 8 games or more once in his career ( which is actually a big negative in his game as well). In his 2006 season where he started every game, they went to the super bowl. The odds are still against him working out, but there is still a chance.

Pat, you keep complaining that he won't throw to his hot routes and check downs. How hard is that problem to correct? Out of all the problems to have, which is bigger, not hitting your checkdowns, or bad mechanics, slow release, holding onto the ball forever etc? Not taking what the defense gives you is something you might expect from a young or inexpereinced guy.

My point about the Chiefs not bringing in a FA is that is the possible improvement really worth it? If Herm has Byron around for 2 years, is it really worth it? Sometimes slight improvement at all costs is not worth it!

If I am in a front office right now, I am looking at tape of Tim Rattay.

No, Pat. He wrote...

"Until a week ago, Leftwich couldn’t get into camp with any team in the league. Culpepper still can’t."

This statement is false. When a player is being being offered contracts, and the player turns them down, due to money or playing status (why he turned them down really isn't my point) then it is false to state that a player cannot get into a camp. Once again, just be very, very, clear, when a player chooses to not go into a camp, it is false to say that he CANNOT get into a camp. That was my point.

Once again just to be crystal clear, beyond any chance of miscommunication, my point was not WHY Culpepper did not sign a contract (I'll stipulate three times that Culpepper's concern is more about contract value, rather than playing status or contract length, since why Culpepper was not signing the contracts was not my point, however erroneous I was on that issue), but rather that it was erroneous to state that Culpepper could not get into a camp.

Will, if it makes you feel better I can amend it to "Until a week ago, Leftwich couldn’t get into camp with any team in the league. Culpepper still can’t because he wouldn't accept the league minimum to back up Roethlisberger."

As Pat says, what I was contradicting was your claim that Culpepper won't sign because he's demanding a chance to compete for a starting job:

Charlie, Culpepper could have a job tomorrow if he was willing to not demand that he openly compete for starting job, and [accept?] a short contract.

As I pointed out, he is not demanding that he openly compete for a starting job. I don't know whether he would accept a short contract - I don't see anything to the contrary. I do see that he wants more money.

My larger point is that the sort of player who, over halfway through the preseason, can only muster one minimum-wage offer from one team, is not someone who I can get very excited about. Call it prejudice, call it pessimism, but this is two bald men fighting over a comb.

Which ignores, Charlie, the fact that the Packers made an offer as well, and then drafted qbs when Culpepper turned them down. Perhaps you should amend your statement to "Culpepper can't get into a camp, except for the camps he can get into".

I'll repeat, once again. I don't care why Culpepper has chosen to not be in a camp, although the reports I read differed from yours, and it wouldn't be the first time a person's public remarks conflicted with what was asked for privately. I. Do. Not. Care. The substance of my difference with you was your contention that Culpepper could not get into a camp. I had a difference with this contention because the contention is not true. Clear enough?

Yeah I dunno Alex “not knowing whether a QB is any good is sufficient reason to draft another one”, by that logic the Dolphins (for example) might draft a QB EVERY year because they are not giving their current crop of players a chance to develop.

I think they probably should be drafting a QB every year, until they have one they know is good. They don't have to cut the QB they draft in year N and keep the QB they draft in year N+1, but they should at least have a competition at QB between two players that are young, and potentially good. And they should have such a competition every year until they have at least one good, relatively proven QB.

And everyone quotes the Chargers deal with Rivers and Brees as a good thing. In reality the Chargers spent a first rounder on a QB they didn’t need (although they got him for a good deal thanks to the Giants), and they then had to cut Brees. The Chargers were losers here IMO.

Well, if they had known Brees would work out, then they shouldn't have taken a QB, but again, what is a better problem to have:

-Not having any good QBs, and wasting an entire season because all of your QBs suck.

-Having two good QBs, and losing one to free agency (and therefore wasting a first round pick)?

My point is that it's better to have too many good QBs than not enough. Neither is necessarily a good thing, but one is a much better problem to have than another.

I'll put it this way: if you had to choose between spending two first round picks and getting one good QB, or spending one first round pick and getting zero good QBs, which would you rather do? The Chargers chose the first option, the Bears chose the second. I think the Chargers made a much better decision, given what they knew at the time, than the Bears did.

Pat, you keep complaining that he won’t throw to his hot routes and check downs. How hard is that problem to correct?

Apparently, it's d*mn near impossible, since he's had 5 years in the NFL, and he's made exactly zero progress in that area. If he were going to learn, he would've done so by now, given that that problem is obvious, to both his team and everyone else, and renders him completely unable to do his job.

Teams know exactly what to do to beat him, and they've known it since (at the very latest) the beginning of last season, and Grossman has made no progress in response to that. Instead, he lost his job to Brian Griese, and now Kyle Orton, and is still making the same mistakes.

Charlie, I also actually agree that Culpepper is not someone to get overly excited about, espcially if he hasn't demonstrated that he has completely recovered the mobility he once had. The guy has always had the extremely bad habit of holding on to the ball forever, which would be deadly on a team without a good offensive line and good receivers.

No, Chris, Grossman was still terrible in 2006. Yes, he "got them to the superbowl," whatever that means, but his accuracy is terrible, he's spooked easily (probably due to all his injuries) and he is horribly undisciplined. He put up a lot of flashy stats because, mostly, of defense's inability to cover Bernard Berrian properly for most of the season, and when he started playing real defenses, or defenses that had tape on him and Berrian, he was atrocious. Grossman has been an unmitigated disaster, although some of the blame lies with Angelo and Smith, since he has always been "their guy," and they don't know when to give up on their projects.

The whole Culpepper camp thing: sure, he turned down GB and Pitt, so in that sense you are clearly right Will - he could be in an NFL camp now.

As of writing though, he doesn't appear to have any offers - if you assume the Steelers' offer is off the table - and in that sense, he can't get into camp.

I accept that it is probably misleading of me to say he "still can't (get into camp)" because that implies that all 32 NFL teams think he is worse than what they already have and as bad as the other undrafted free agent QBs, which is not quite the case.

Well, Charlie, like I said, I don't disagree with you all that much in your assessment of whether Culpepper is someone to get excited about, in terms of bringing him to the Bears. The guys weaknesses, I think, would be a very bad fit for the Bears' skill set on offense. There is something to be said for the devil you know, which is why I have not been, with the exception of Garcia and perhaps Pennington, been all that hot for bringing in available veterans to compete with Tavaris Jackson. It takes a nontrivial effort for coaching staffs and teammates to work in a new qb, so unless you have some reason to think that the new guy will be nontrivially better than the stiff who is already on the roster, I can see why there is a tendency to stand pat. Culpepper, I think, has gained a repuation for being a bit of a high maintainence guy as well, which probably doesn't help.

Pat, you keep complaining that he won’t throw to his hot routes and check downs. How hard is that problem to correct?

As a sixth year veteran?

It's hard enough to correct for rookies. It's a question of whether or not they can stay calm with a lot of information flying at them.

The other problem is that Grossman's only real strength is his ability to throw a deep pass, and in 2006 he really stressed that against bad defenses by having a ton of time to search for a receiver.

If you restrict his ability to do that, he's worthless.

My point about the Chiefs not bringing in a FA is that is the possible improvement really worth it

My point about the Chiefs is that they won't improve nearly as much with a FA QB as Chicago will replacing Grossman.

It's two entirely different situations. Both Huard and Croyle could start for the Bears. At the least, neither would be significantly worse.

It takes a nontrivial effort for coaching staffs and teammates to work in a new qb, so unless you have some reason to think that the new guy will be nontrivially better than the stiff who is already on the roster, I can see why there is a tendency to stand pat.

Which is why the Bears wouldn't start him right away. You let Orton start, which isn't godawful horrible.

Then you give yourself time to make sure that Culpepper can do a better job, and then start him.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make here is that everyone seems to be thinking about replacing the Bears starting quarterback. I'm thinking about replacing the Bears backup quarterback, which is an entirely different situation.

I don't think Orton needs to be tossed out - he looks bad, yeah, but "about replacement level" bad, which you can live with, especially if you're hoping to replace him with a guy who might be league-average (Culpepper).

But I really don't see the point in keeping Grossman. I mean, he's gotten beat out by two replacement-level guys in two years (Griese and Orton), and he's getting paid an obscene amount of money ($3M base salary?!) for a sub-replacement level QB.

Even just salary-cap wise, it's worth getting rid of Grossman before the season starts, because it becomes fully guaranteed when he hits the roster in week 1.

I tend to agree, pat, but I developed a greater respect over the past couple of years regarding how hard it is manage the qb position. In any case, if the Bears were going to go that route, they shoulda' done it at least a month ago.

In any case, if the Bears were going to go that route, they shoulda’ done it at least a month ago.

I could believe that they were hoping that Grossman would rise to the pressure once he realized that it was now or never.

But, at this point, it's to the point where you have to look at the situation and say "yeah, I'm not paying $3M salary for this."

If Rex Grossman throws an incomplete pass in the middle of a forest, and nobody sees it, will 10,000 angry Bears fans go online the next day to explain why their front office hasn't done a piss-poor job finding quarterbacks?