Where else will you get a neckbeard like that one?

Boy am I glad our GM "chooses" to remember only the good bits. Otherwise, I'd be parking someone's Toyota Camry right about now.

Someone explain to the Bears that QB controversies are good when you have two great ones, not two awful ones.

The Bears really don't have a choice as there is nothing in FA. They will draft a QB as the LT solution.

Fun with numbers: Can you pair the CHI QB (Grossman, Orton, Griese) with his DVOA rating?

A) -16.5%
B) -15.4%
C) -16.1%

Their situation, while regrettable, is mainly one of where else could they go...

I imagine they inquired about McNabb and were told no chance.

Probably the most viable other option would be Culpepper. He might be a slight upgrade at this point but he'd be coming into a new system. ANd he still seems disconnected from a realistic evaluation of his worth (remember he turned down jacksonville because they wanted him for 2 years, and he insisted on one so he could benefit from the massive demand for him following this year)...

About the bears and Mcnabb: a rumor came out that some one had asked them about him and they asked for 3 first round picks. Am I prone to believing that rumor? no. But it wouldn't surprise me if the asking price for Mcnabb was that high.

#4: Those numbers seem like they might be telling us something. Grossman was a first round pick, and Griese has been mildly successful in his other stops around the league. Yet they completely and utterly fail when they get to Chicago.

I think there might be two problems here. First, Chicago has zero weapons on offense other than Berrian (and Olsen developing at the end of the season). Berrian's an inconsistent deep threat, so the QBs lack easy throws and feel a need to press. Second, Ron Turner has consistently failed to impress me as an offensive coordinator. His game plans are consistently passive and unimaginative.

Despite having watched almost every Bears game this season, I'm still a fan of Rex Grossman. I feel like if he gets in a situation with some good coaching and a decent offense around him that he doesn't need to carry, he can still be a successful QB.

Also, #6 - If the Eagles think they're getting three first-rounders for a 32 year old QB who averages 11 games a year, they're dreaming. They should aim for a single late 1st/early 2nd and call it a day, unless they think they can win in the next year or two.

The reason why I was so regretful about the Vikings not making a run at Garcia last year, assuming they didn't quietly, only to be told their was no interest from Garcia, was because it is so obvious that there aren't anywhere close to 32 qbs in the league who you can have confidence in, regarding their ability to make plays that will win games, and avoid plays that will lose games.

Culpepper is delusional at this point regarding what his perceived value is, and Leftwich is an immobile guy with a big wind-up, which is horrible combo in the modern NFL. I has some hopes that the Jets would get silly and dump Pennington, who for all his physical limitations, can stll get pointed in the right direction, and would thus be a decent guy to have on the roster with Tavaris Jackson, but the Jets seem to have more sense than that.

The Bears didn't have a lot of options, and the same can be said about a lot of teams. I think the number one factor in being a great NFL coach is to get hired by a team which drafted number 1 when Peyton Manning was available, or to luck out by stumbling over Tom Brady late in the draft.

"And Chicago still has questions along the offensive line, at running back and at wideout."

Don't forget safety.

As for the QBs, as pointed out by #4 and #5, it's not like they could just go and pick up an All-Pro QB off the street. None of the available free agents would represent a clear upgrade. (Culpepper? No way. Pep not eeven beter than JaMacrus Rusesll now.)* And a trade for McNabb is unrealistic.

So considering their current options, I'm fine with Grossman and Orton for 2008.

*Typos intentional in honor of raiderjoe.

Re: 5

Does it seem strange to you that Raiderjoe first started posting here about when Culpepper signed with Oakland? Daunte Culpepper IS Raiderjoe!!!!!

Mystery solved.

"hopes that the Jets would get silly and dump Pennington,....but the Jets seem to have more sense than that."

If by "dump" you mean release, then no, the Jets will not dump Pennington. But trade him for a decent draft pick or a solid veteran player, definitely.

7 - But we'll never know about Rex in Chicago because the QB coaching continues to suck. There are probably fewer quality QB coaches in the NFL than there are good QBs. Mike Martz continues to be employed even though he gets his QBs killed because he can take unheralded QBs and turn them into Pro Bowl caliber players (Green, Warner, Bulger). Grossman isn't going to get that level of coaching in Chicago. If he was smart, he would have taken a backup position in a place like Seattle, Dallas, or Philly and learned from a decent coach.

Re 12:
Uh-huh. Yet dozens of college QBs look great every Saturday.

No dice my friend. Grossman is Jake Delhomme on a great day. If Orton can perform comparably to Grossman with less talent then there's no reason to believe that coaching is the difference.

I'm dissapointed because we've seen what these guys can do in this system. They're not very good. So, what exactly is the downside to bringing someone new in? They might have a couple of sub 10 QB rating games? Seen it. They might fumble a couple snaps? Seen it. There's no kind of bad QBing that hasn't been perpetrated by the three stooges designated as QBs on the Bears.

"So, what exactly is the downside to bringing someone new in?"

The new guy might be version 2.0 of one of the following: Cade McNown, Kordell Stewart, Rick Mirer, Henry Burris, Chad Hutchinson, Craig Krenzel, Moses Moreno, Steve Stenstrom, Will Furrer, . . . .

Also, #6 - If the Eagles think they’re getting three first-rounders for a 32 year old QB who averages 11 games a year, they’re dreaming.

They're not dreaming - they aren't 'shooting' to trade McNabb at all. They can afford to trade him, but they don't want to: which means they'd have to be seriously compensated to do so.

"Also, #6 - If the Eagles think they’re getting three first-rounders for a 32 year old QB who averages 11 games a year, they’re dreaming."

This is probably just a rumor. With that said, it wouldn't really shock me if that is the asking price. That sounds about right. I don't think they are looking to trade him at all. So that looks like exactly what I would expect them to say to anyone who inquired about a trade. It is more of a, "we really don't want to trade him, but if you are desperate enough to seriously over pay for him, I guess we can do that".

Re: 13

The Bears have won a fair number of games (and made the Superbowl) with these guys at QB. There's no guarantee they would do as well with somebody/anybody else. The Ravens didn't get better when Dilfer left.

I've always thought that the QBs make the receivers and not the other way around (unless you have truly phenomenal talent like Randy Moss). The problem with the offense last year was the offensive line. It was terrible. If they can fix that everyone will start looking better. Also, I don't know about Turner's "game plans [being] consistently passive and unimaginative." It's not his fault that Benson sucked and the line sucked even more. With no running game and Grossman/Griese/Orton as your quarterback no coordinator in the league would look good. Actually Martz might look good, but then you realize his DVOA was 21st in the league. Also Turner got blasted by the fans even when he did things right. Remember the no-huddle against the Giants? It was very successful, and Grossman played well that game. Then on the message boards all I read is "why didn't Turner use the no-huddle more, what a moron." I think fans would have been happier if hadn't run any no-huddle.

Re 17:
Yes, Grossman was so great he willed his team to victory while posting sub 10 QB ratings. Orton was so great he won games while throwing 10 passes.

Apparently the only way to get rid of a QB in Chicago is if the coaches pull him. No QB is worthy of reproach in that great city on the lake as long as the defense wins the game.

You're posting on a site that has the Chicago QBs at 39, 41 and another who would be there if he just threw a few more passes. There are 38 QBs better than all the Chicago QBs. 38!!! How much worse does it need to be before it's time for a change?

mactbone -

I would agree with you if it were just Grossman & Orton, but Griese is a much more interesting case. He's had great-looking DVOA numbers when he's played for teams with highly regarded offensive coaches (Denver w/Shanahan, TB w/Gruden) and awful DVOA with teams like Chicago and Miami.

Aren't the Bears gonna draft a QB? Wouldn't that then be 4 QB's on the roster with Griese, Rex, and Hobo there too? Why wouldn't they let one of Rex or Orton go?

21: It's been widely reported that the Bears are going to release Griese sometime within the next week, before he is due a roster bonus.

Also, the Bears have said that they might carry 4 QBs on the roster. I think they'll release Griese, draft a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round, and go with 3 QBs. They may bring in another QB for training camp, but I doubt that person will stick on the roster.

Re: 19

I'm not suggesting that the Bears QBs are good, just that it is possible to be worse. If we assume, for the sake of argument that, that there are 35ish better QBs in the NFL than these guys, which QBs should they pursue? Let's ignore QBs ranked 25+ as not a meaningful enough improvement. Which of the top 25 can the Bears obtain? I've previously suggested they should target Derek Anderson, but Bears fans tell me they think he's no better than Grossman, just a better supporting cast. So what's the answer??

Re 19:

Yes, lets pretend DVOA is end-all be-all of measuring players. Unless you would rather have AJ Feeley, Tavaris Jackson, Brodie Croyle, or Quinn Gray as your quarterback instead of Grossman. Last season Chicago was a very tough spot for a quarterback. Only a few really great quarterbacks could have done anything worthwhile behind that line with no running game to help. Grossman looked a lot better after coming back from his benching and Orton showed some upside too (although he is horribly inaccurate, and I'm starting to think he will never be accurate enough to start in the NFL).

Name one QB who is big enough improvement over Grossman that he'll outperform him in his first year in the system.

Name one QB that can be had in a trade that will be worth what we give up for him.

#23 mawbrew is absolutely correct. Even if the top 32 QBs were pigeonholed into each of the starting positions, that means one team with the best QB they could have would have the 32 nd best QB. To have the 39 best QB when your passing game had serious flaws is not that unusual nor a sign that it is entirely the QB's fault and that any reasonable replacement would even give you the 32nd best QB. Especially in light of Chicago QB history.
Given the occasional good play of the QBs in question, I don't find this a terrible move, IF: they make moves to improve the o-line and receiving corps. A QB in the draft, even second day, might grow into the starter if these two can't.
Also, if they don't, yeah their season is probably lost, but then again an injury to a franchise QB can ruin that team's year as well.
By themselves, the moves are not great, but other moves may make them better moves. Likewise, if they don't improve the line and WRs, the moves will probably get one or more people fired.

This is sure a great time to be a Packer fan

1- Bears keep holding pat with the 3 qbs that they have now with nobody else in sight

2- Lions have Millen

3- Vikings look like they are going to stay married to Jackson and since Moss left have all but been a joke

20, And yet the Broncos got rid of Griese... for Jake the Snake, no less. Tampa also preferred to go in another direction. So even when it's been good for Griese, it's been bad. And remember: in Miami, he made Jay Fiedler seem like Dan Marino by comparison. Fiedler had to be thrown back into the lineup before he was completely healed, just to stop the nightmare. There are no words to describe how bad Griese was with the Dolphins. It's beyond DVOA to describe it.

I love how people get mad at the Bears for not "going out and getting a better QB". As if you can just wave a magic wand and get a Pro Bowler.

If the Bears can't get Anderson or McNabb (and it doesn't look like they can), there aren't any better options for next year.

Grossman and Orton aren't the best QBs in the game, but with a better O-Line (and some influx in the WR corps) they should be good enough for the Bears offense to carry its weight.

28: Well, yea, you kind of can sometimes. Jeff Garcia blasted the Bears QBs out of the water this season, and it's not like they would have had to work too hard to get him.

I thought they should have given up on Grossman at the end of 2005. The Ravens had given up on Grossman's draft classmate, Kyle Boller, by that time, realizing that they had an awesome defense and all they needed to do was have a decent QB to make a Super Bowl run. The Bears refused to do the same with Grossman, even though he hadn't been half the QB that Boller was. I told my Bears fan friends that they should get Brees. Even if he started the year injured, he'd finish the year hoisting the Lombardi trophy.

In retrospect, I don't think they even needed Drew Brees to do it. They could have done it with McNair or Kitna.

In 2007, they could have drafted Trent Edwards or Kevin Kolb, or signed Garcia, like I mentioned. The Falcons acquired Joey Harrington, who had a better season than Grossman will ever have. The Texans got Matt Schaub. It's not like there are never other quarterbacks around. It's that the Bears steadfastly refuse to let anyone compete with their awful quarterbacks.

Honestly, I'd be livid if I were a Bears fan. They might be even more difficult to watch than the Lions or the Cardinals. At least those teams try.

#29:

"Honestly, I’d be livid if I were a Bears fan. They might be even more difficult to watch than the Lions or the Cardinals. At least those teams try."

Yeah, it's been hard to watch two division titles and a Superbowl trip in the last three years. And all that without trying!

I'd rather have irrational hope that my team's chance is just around the corner, than have absolute knowledge that my team's chance just passed it by.

It's precisely because the Bears defense has been so good that it is so frustrating. If the Dolphins want to hang around with Cleo Lemon or John Beck for another year, nobody will care.

Well, you make a case. Maybe I'll give up on the Bears for a few years and come back when we're 1-15.

You seem a bit "glass half-full" with the 1-15 Dolphins and "glass half-empty" with the Bears' success over the last 3 years. I don't see how you can have "absolute knowledge" that Chicago's chance has passed them by. Sure, it is frustrating that the Bears can't find a QB, but I don't think it's because they aren't trying. The idea that they should have given up on Grossman at the end of 2005 is ridiculous. It's certainly arguable that they should have worked harder to bring in a new guy last year, but weigh that against the hope that Grossman would become more consistent after his first year as a starter plus the risk that the new guy won't work out either. As another poster already pointed out, Baltimore swapping Dilfer for Grbac didn't work.

David Carr? Didn't work in Carolina. Matt Schaub? Give up a 1st and a 3rd plus a big contract for someone who's hardly played and ask him to replace the guy who's just taken his team to the Superbowl? Jeff Garcia had a good year, but you'd be signing him on the basis of 6 good games with Philadelphia and ignoring how he played with Detroit the year before.

Going into last year, as an optimistic Bears fan, I hoped Rex's problems holding onto the ball and throwing ugly interceptions could and would be fixed. And if they couldn't, I hoped Brian Griese could be a safe pair of hands. And if he couldn't, I hoped a QB that had been on the roster for 3 years and won 10-odd games as a rookie might have improved enough to look like a semi-competent starter.

None of that really happened. But the whole offense was rubbish last year: Benson couldn't run, the line couldn't block, and the receivers weren't much cop either. If the Bears had brought in Peyton Manning it wouldn't have made a great difference.

I'm with Yaguar, I'm borderline livid with the personnel decisions and, perhaps more specifically, the lack thereof. I take it that the front office has decided no better options are on the horizon immediately, so they are desperately hoping to recapture some Super Bowl magic quickly by clinging to whatever wreckage is still in the water.

Problem is, these are the same decision-makers who benched Grossman 3 games into last season. Glad you're definite on your talent evaluation! If they've got so little faith, what's the rush to slide an offer of some real money across the table?

And now, they extended Orton for IDENTICAL financial terms. What imagination! They are every bit as clueless in evaluating what they have and planning accordingly as when Chad Hutchinson went from #1 QB to #4 to cut within a few weeks.

The other thing that makes no sense to me, which also seems to be the basis for handing out contracts, is the lip service about the impending "open competition" between Orton and Grossman. They've had several years to watch both of them now and, though it seems like they decided Grossman has won the competition each year, now they want to make sure to undecide even that. I was a fan of the Jerry Angelo who was silent and MIA from October through January last season.

I really don't know how to talk to Bears fans. I don't think you guys are aware of how quarterback play works in the rest of the league. For example, there are people who can take snaps correctly and stuff. Outside of Chicago, there are people who can throw on-target passes, and step up in the pocket when there's a pass-rush instead of running 30 yards backwards. Outside of Chicago, we don't heap praise on a quarterback every time he goes 7-18 for 104 yards and an interception in a 17-10 win.

Peyton Manning would be just fine in the Bears offense, thank you. Their supporting cast is good - in fact, in 2006 it was the single greatest supporting cast I've ever seen for a quarterback. Just because they've been treading around with the same handful of QB busts for the same 4 years doesn't mean that it's impossible for a quarterback to succeed in Chicago. It's just impossible for Rex Grossman to succeed in Chicago because he sucks.

In most other cities, the opposite of this happens - the quarterback gets blamed for everything. See: Philadelphia. They probably would trade Donovan McNabb for Spergon Wynn over there. But in Chicago, it seems like the QB can do no wrong, even though quarterback play has singlehandedly screwed them out of one, perhaps two Super Bowls.

"Their supporting cast is good - in fact, in 2006 it was the single greatest supporting cast I’ve ever seen for a quarterback."

Two things here: the Bears supporting cast on offense, on the basis of their performance in 2007, is not, by any definition, good. The line is old, the backs suck, the receivers aren't too hot. I don't think their 31st rank in DVOA would have leapt 20+ places with Garcia or Schaub or Carr or anyone else who was available last off-season in there.

Secondly, do you really think, in 2006, that Rex Grossman was playing with the "single greatest supporting cast" ever put together in the history of the NFL? Come on.

Peyton Manning in the 2006 Bears offense probably (maybe?) wins the Superbowl. Peyton Manning in the 2007 Bears offense doesn't make the playoffs.

Don't get the wrong impression - I don't think very much of Rex or Griese or Orton, and especially after last year I don't think any of them are going to be the answer at QB.

Sure, the Bears need a better QB. Who do you suggest right now?

I said the 2006 Bears had the greatest supporting cast I've ever seen, not in the history of the NFL. My football watching goes back to 1997 or so. They narrowly edge out the 2000 Ravens, the 2003 Ravens, (squandered by Anthony Wright) the 2002 Bucs, and the 2007 Patriots.

The 2006 Bears had a good to very good rushing attack, one of the best defenses of the DVOA era, a kicker who basically couldn't miss, and the best return man ever. This was also the brief window where Muhammad was still solid but Berrian had developed, so the receivers were solid. Additionally, Desmond Clark played incredibly well both as a blocker and as a receiver.

I'll stand behind that assertion pretty comfortably.

As for right now, I'd suggest Brohm with their high second-rounder if he's available. On the other hand, the Bears are clearly going to suck for quite a while at this point, so they can wait to grab a QB until next year. 2008 is already pretty much a lost season for them. They just went 5-11 and lost arguably their best player, and Rex Grossman is their QB behind an abysmal offensive line.

Ok, so in 2006 Grossman had the best supporting cast of any QB in the last 10 years, better than Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Tony Romo this year, better than Kurt Warner in 2001 or any of those Rams teams, any Colt team of the last 5 years, better than San Diego the last few years, better than those Kansas City teams of a few years ago, better than the '98 Vikings, and just "narrowly beating out the 2000 Ravens...and the 2007 Patriots."

Leaving the Bears aside for a moment, are you actually saying that the 2000 Ravens and 2007 Patriots had a similarly talented supporting cast, so that if you plugged Brady into the 2007 Ravens he would throw for 50 tds? Or that he would account for a 50-point increase in DVOA?

I expect the Bears will draft a QB this year; I'll be disappointed if they don't. But given that there don't seem to be any better options in free agency, I don't see any great harm in re-signing Grossman and Orton for peanuts.

Again, I don't know why you're so convinced the Bears will "suck for quite a while at this point" or that "2008 is already pretty much a lost season for them" or that "they just went 5-11" (they went 7-9), or "lost arguably their best player" (Moose?).

37: You're confused. Supporting cast includes defense and special teams. Brady wouldn't throw 50 TDs with the 2000 Ravens, but I'd expect him to win 14+ regular season games plus the Superbowl without breaking a sweat.

Bears' arguably best player would be Briggs, who's only nominally still under contract and doesn't seem to get along well with the front office. He isn't officially gone yet, but he will be.

Re Yaguar:

Remember when Ugoh was hurt and the Colts were playing with there 4th and 5th wide receivers against the Chargers, and Peyton Manning threw 6 interceptions? The Bear's offense is only slightly better than that. Seriously, every one but Berrian, the TEs, and maybe Garza was a waste of space last year.

And if our best player is Briggs, I'm a monkey's uncle. If there is one thing the front office and coaches know it's defense, and there is a reason they're not re-signing Briggs at any cost.

My mistake - I assumed that you meant just offense, since it came after a discussion of the difference adding Peyton Manning would make to the offense.

Having said that, I still think it's a pretty big claim. Isn't there some way with DVOA to plug in a replacement-level QB and see how the team would do?

I think where you and I fundamentally disagree is that you apparently give Grossman no credit for the success of the 2006 offense. Rather, you blame him for it not being far, far better. Is the suggestion that his 23tds, 3000-odd yards etc were down to the talent around him, and that an average guy would have done, what, 30tds and 4000yds?

I don't understand why Moose, Berrian, Clark, Jones, the OL etc get credit for a good play and Grossman doesn't. If Rex throws a td, it's because his receivers did something right, not because he did. I don't see how you are able to separate it in such a way that one aspect of the offense "sucks" and the other makes up part of the best supporting cast you've seen in ten years of watching the NFL.

Sorry to trot out the old Ken Anderson line, but I think you are giving the QB too much credit when the team wins and too much blame when they lose.

One more thing, anyone who says that the Bears aren't trying to find a quarterback doesn't follow them very closely, since Angelo has been GM we've started 23 different quarterbacks, it's not lack of trying that we haven't found a QB. It's a combo of bad luck, bad coaching, and bad line play.

41: While I haven't checked the numbers for accuracy, I think you mean they have changed starting QB 23 times, not that they have started 23 different QBs. Several of those 23 changes involve the same players who started, then didn't start (due to injury or ineffectiveness) and then regained the starting job (Grossman, Orton, Miller, and Matthews come to mind).

No, I don't give the QB any credit for the team wins in the case of the Bears, even though they had a two-season streak of excellence.

Another thing: conventional stats with Grossman are misleading because they don't include fumbles or account for the short fields produced by the defense and special teams. DVOA has him pegged as a replacement-level QB.

There's no real way of measuring Manning-in-Bears-Offense, but there are some (bad) approximations you could do. Manning's passing performance was worth 175 DPAR in 2006, and Grossman's was worth 4.1. If you brought Manning's 2006 passing production to the 2006 Bears instead of Grossman's performance, that would be worth about 170.9 additional points, or 10.68 points per game. Add that to the 2006 Bears, and they would easily be the greatest team of all time, winning games by an average of over 21 points.

If you prefer to look at things by DVOA, changing the Bears' -10%ish passing attack to the Colts' +50% would add about 30% to the Bears overall DVOA for 2006. They would have a team DVOA around 54%, which would edge them above the 2007 Patriots.

Of course, the 170 point difference between 2006 Manning and 2006 Grossman is partially attributable to a whole bunch of other things, so this analysis isn't all that fruitful. But it's true that with a typical Peyton Manning passing attack, the 2006 Bears would have been unequivocally the greatest team of all time.

Going back to the more general points of this argument, I totally don't deny that the Bears offense is now awful and needs to be completely blown up and retooled. That wasn't true in 2006, though. It just happened that the OL and Moose both got old at once, and Jones left. By now, offensive woes are clearly a result of a whole bunch of things, not just the quarterback situation. But the Bears' stubborn refusal to do anything about the QB situation, which has basically remained the same, and awful, for years now, should be a huge concern.

42: How many of those quarterbacks were remotely serious investments?

Grossman, sure. Griese was paid a semi-decent amount. Orton was a 4th rounder. Outside of that, they've had a 40-year-old Chris Chandler, a possibly-even-older Jeff Blake, and Kordell Stewart. At least I've heard of those names outside of their suckiness on the Bears, but all of them were past their primes and only Chandler was decent to begin with. I guess they get some credit for spending a 5th rounder on Krenzel. Because we all know that 5th round picks are so successful at quarterback. What, should I give them credit for putting a castoff like Miller or Hutchinson, or a two-time castoff like Matthews or Quinn out there?

They've drafted 3 quarterbacks that I know of (possibly some 7th rounder out of the woodwork that I don't know offhand), gotten a handful of journeymen in the twilight of their careers, and handed the job to random sixth rounders that two other teams had ditched.

They have not tried to invest in the quarterback position. The fact that they let Shane Matthews play for them proves, rather than refutes, this fact.

(I think the 23-QB thing is the number of different starting QBs they have had since Brett Favre started his streak of starts).

You're right, that Ken Anderson quote is not very helpful. What I mean to say is "Grossman doesn't get enough credit when he puts up good numbers and too much blame when he puts up bad ones."

Surely you are confusing "Manning passing production" with just Peyton Manning. Sure, if you added Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Joseph Addai, Dallas Clark, Jeff Saturday etc plus 8 home games in a dome to the Bears' 2006 #5 defense and #1 special teams, that team would have a lot of success. If you added all those things bar Peyton Manning to the 2006 Bears and plugged in a replacement level QB or Rex Grossman, that team would have a lot of success.

But that wasn't the point anyway: I conceded that Manning on the 2006 Bears would stand a good chance of winning the Superbowl. It's on the 2007 team that we were talking about. Manning behind what you termed "an abysmal line", with no running game and dodgy receivers would not get on "just fine".

But as you say, back to the main points. It's the suggestion that the Bears haven't been trying to find a QB that is so maddening. In the last 10-15 years the Bears have traded high picks for QBs (hello Rick Mirer! Goodbye again!), spent high first round picks on QBs (Hello Cade McNown! Hello Rex!), signed free agents (Kordell Stewart! Brian Griese! Yay!) and they really haven't done terribly well. With Rex, there have at least been a few fleeting moments of success - a bit of promise as a rookie, a good performance against Carolina in the playoffs (after which you say the Bears should have given up on him) and the first, glorious few weeks of the 2006 season, in which he looked like Dan Marino. MVP! MVP! Look at the numbers! The numbers are so beautiful.

Then we played Arizona and everything went to s**t.

And sadly, despite some hopeful moments, he's mostly been pretty duff since.

From my perspective, it's not "stubborn refusal" to do anything about the QB situation over the last 20 years that has landed them in trouble, it's just that the moves they have made have not worked. Other teams just seem to find late round/ free agent types like Brady, Romo or Hasselbeck, and we don't. There was a point when Green Bay seemed to tease us every year by finding some great late-round gem at QB, a position where they didn't even need help! Man.

I know the Bears have had some horrid play at QB. Believe me, I know. And I believe Bears management know it. But this year, right now, I don't see a viable alternative to our "replacement level" QB in free agency. Last year, coming off a Superbowl trip and Grossman's first year as a starter, I can see the rationale in sticking with him and not making a run at Carr, Garcia or Schaub. This year, I can see the rationale in not trading a bunch of high picks for Derek Anderson or McNabb. That's all there is to it.

They tried to get Plummer, but he wanted to go to Denver. Cade McNown was on the team when Angelo arrived.

Grossman's injuries really derailed a lot of things. We probably had a chance to get Brees, but we had a first round pick who had looked promising in limited time, but had only played in 8 games. You're not going to find a lot of coaches or GMs who are going to give up on a draft pick like that just because a player like Brees becomes available. Don't forget, there were major concerns about Brees's health too.

Other than Brees who could the Bear's have gotten that would have been a definite above average starter (or even average)? I count 3: McNair, Garcia, and Kitna. However, McNair was worse in the playoffs than even Grossman was, so it's not like we would have done any better with him. They both melted down against the same team too. Garcia in Chicago would more than likely have been the same Garcia that was in Detroit or Cleveland, and not the Philly/Tampa Bay Garcia. We don't run the west coast offense that those teams run that suites him so well. Plus, none of our offensive coaches come close to Gruden or Reid. Last would be Kitna, but I have doubts that his arm would be strong enough to handle Soldier Field in December, and there was no evidence that he would be any better than Griese.

This is a team that drafted two quarterbacks in the 1st round within 4 years, and brought in at least 3 free agents that were starters with their previous teams (Kordell, Chandler, and Griese). If we draft a QB with one of our first two picks this year, that means 3 first day picks spent on QBs in 9 years.

Only 3 teams have used a similar amount of draft picks on QBs. The Chargers, who ended up picking two good ones, the Browns, who have two busts and Quinn to show for it, and the Lions, who have two career backups and Drew Stanton.

I really don't know see how the Bears could have tried harder, other than to give up on Grossman 8 games into his career and bring in Brees.

First, because it's the point of yours that most bothers me: Grossman's performance against Carolina was not remotely good by any stretch of the imagination.

Second, Manning would get along just fine with the terrible 2007 Bears offense because he's the greatest quarterback since Montana, but that's not really an important hypothetical, since the Bears aren't ever going to find someone like him.

The Bears certainly took their shot for a great QB in McNown and failed miserably. It's been their moves since at quarterback that have been infuriating. They simply haven't invested nearly enough to have a prayer of finding a good one, especially considering that they aren't so good at evaluating it in the first place.

Oh, don't forget that Joey Harrington easily outperformed the Bears QBs with a supporting cast that was arguably just as atrocious.

(This year, that is. I'm talking about him as a possible hypothetical acquisition. His quick release would probably help mask the Bears' atrocious pass blocking, just like it did for Atlanta.)

Are we talking about the ten years you've been following the NFL or longer?

In the last ten years the Bears have drafted two QBs in the first half of the first round (McNown, Grossman), and signed another guy in free agency (the legend that is Kordell Stewart) to start. Plus they've taken late-round fliers on Orton and Krenzel.

That seems about average for a team looking for a good, long-term QB.

Off the top of my head, I can't remember a year when it felt obvious they should go after a particular QB in free agency or the draft.

Grossman wasn't in the upper half of the first round. McNown was, and the Bears have been very stingy spending on QBs since the McNown bust. That's the problem.

You are quite right about Grossman's performance against Carolina in the playoffs - I remembered it as some sort of 2td, 1i 200yds game. But it was quite a lot worse. Albeit that that offense (even without Grossman) was the worst in the league that year. 21 points was more than we usually scored.

I'm really surprised that you still think Manning would "get along just fine" with your "abysmal offensive line", awful rbs and duff receivers. To repeat myself, do you really think the addition of Manning would make the 31st-ranked offense into a top ten one? With that line? With those backs? You give QBs too much credit.

In what sense did Joey Harrington "easily outperform" the Bears QBs? I know passer rating is a blunt tool, but Harrington was better than Grossman and the same as Griese and Orton, I'd say. What would be the point of signing someone just as bad as the current roster?

When you say "invested", do you just mean money? Because your argument seems to amount to "Spend more money on a better quarterback", which would be great, were one available.

Again, you're right about Grossman: he went #22 rather than in the top half. Sorry!

So again, which great QBs should the Bears have spent big on in free agency since McNown?

Yaguar, you and others could argue forever about the mistakes the Bears organization has made with the quarterback position. Sid Luckman was the last acutally good QB the Bears had (don't say Jim McMahon, he was just as much a beneficiary of a phenomenal defense, offensive line, and running back as any QB ever).
However, you've been characterizing Chicago as a city that celebrates crappy QB play. That is far from true. Consider the following points:
- Grossman pretty much got all of the blame for the Super Bowl loss, and while he played very poorly, the coaching staff's refusal to play more aggressively on defense was also a major factor (and yet Rivera leaving town was considered a tragedy).
- During the week leading up to the Super Bowl, when the city should have been in full Kool-Aid mode, local grocery chains were selling cookies with a no-Rex symbol (think: No Smoking) on them. When the team is on the verge of winning the Super Bowl!
- Throughout 2006, whenever Grossman had a poor game, the local media would jump all over him when he shrugged off mistakes or admitted he didn't play that well, without making excuses. Then, he finally gave in and made an excuse after the New Years Eve loss to the Packers, and he got crucified for that.
---
Look, people around here know I'm a Grossman (and Orton) apologist, so I won't defend them here. I think a lot of my views come from being contrarian, primarily living in a city where a QB is burned in effigy for having a bad game.

Re 54:
And yet I'm in the middle of a discussion on a Bears list with people who think Grossman is a Pro Bowl level talent. There were callers to Chicago sports radio clamoring for Orton into the 2006 playoffs. Just look at most of the responses here that assume bad QB play in Chicago like it's a curse. If management hasn't found anyone yet, it's because management sucks, not some weird deal where the Bears aren't allowed to find a good QB like other teams.

"Name one QB who is big enough improvement over Grossman that he’ll outperform him in his first year in the system.

Name one QB that can be had in a trade that will be worth what we give up for him."

Rosenfels? I doubt you'd even have to give up a second for him, and while he's not quite as good as his 21.7% 2007 DVOA, he has great pocket awareness (a must for a team with a line as bad as Chicago's) and would be a clear upgrade on anything they have. More speculatively, I'd try quite hard to trade for Jim Sorgi, who the little evidence we have suggests has real starting potential. Culpepper holds the ball far too long to be a good fit, but Harrington did ok in a horrible situation last year and might well be an upgrade. Finally, this looks to me like an awesome draft class for mid-round QBs. Far too many of them have been excessively downgraded for bad late-season games where their team was overmatched, or similar. Colt Brennan most of all.

"Matt Schaub? Give up a 1st and a 3rd plus a big contract for someone who’s hardly played and ask him to replace the guy who’s just taken his team to the Superbowl?"

It was two seconds, not a first and a third, and the "big money" included only $7m in guarantees. If Schaub had been/turns out to be a bust, it wouldn't have/won't break the Texans' cap situation for long.

Are Grossman and Orton really so much worse than Harrington, Rosenfels, Sorgi and Culpepper?

As for Schaub last year, $7m guaranteed and $20m over the first 3 years still seems like a lot for someone with 2 NFL starts. I'm very poor on the salary cap and how dead money is calculated, but if he's a bust, while it might not destroy your cap, it would still set you back a bit, right? Maybe Schaub is working/ will work out, but I can see why the Bears would pass on him and save their money and picks for a better bet.

"Are Grossman and Orton really so much worse than Harrington, Rosenfels, Sorgi and Culpepper?"

Orton is pretty clearly a good deal worse than any of those players. Grossman's mind-blowing inconsistency makes him harder to assess, but I would say there is considerably more chance that Harrington, Rosenfels and Sorgi could be consistently competent in Chicago than that Grossman could. I'm not saying I'd give up a whole lot for any of them, but Rosenfels' half season of play in 2007 was better than anything Grossman has ever done, Sorgi has been great in limited action (albeit in a very QB friendly environment) and Harrington's competence in a similarly horrible offensive situation last year suggests he might be a good fit for the Bears.

I don't think Chicago should consider Culpepper for one second, but if I was a team with a good offensive line in need of a quality veteran back-up or a solid starter to make me a contender, I'd far rather have him than Grossman. Minnesota seems like an idea fit . . . oh. Wait.

If Schaub had been a bust and been cut this off-season, he would have counted a little under three million against the cap in 2008 and the same again in 2009. That's not great, but it hardly tanks your franchise for the season. His contract had a total value almost identical to Jay Cutler's rookie deal, but with far less guaranteed money. Essentially, the Schaub trade cost the equivalent of a mid first round draft pick in terms of both value chart points and cap exposure. The question is, was Schaub more or less likely to succeed than a typical mid-first round quarterback? I'm inclined to think that two starts and a load of preseason time is a lot better than no pro ball at all, and that it's also worth factoring in the reasonable assumption that Schaub was fully ready to start in the NFL in a way no rookie could be.

Of course, Schaub's apparent fragility may well yet make him a bust.