Bears QBs, Cutler's future, the Bears generally

[Patler]

The Bears have now had 20 starting QBs,.....this century.
Per the Chicago Tribune, Barkley was their 20th starter at QB since the 2000 season.

They are reporting that Cutler may be headed to IR with a torn labrum in his right shoulder, and may have played his last game for the Bears. The cap hit to cut him next year is minimal. The guarantees in his contract extension have been paid already, so the break with him would be easy.

One article suggested that the Trevathan's recovery from his patellar tendon tear that landed him on IR will likely extend into next season, and very well might be career-altering. They also suggested that the Bears are unlikely to make a big financial commitment to Alshon Jeffrey, and that they are losing hope/interest in Kevin White. It wasn't clear if these are just wild speculations, or if based on inside information.

Coaching? They seem to think Fox is as good as gone already, and pointed out that the Bears have to win all of their remaining games for Fox's two-year record to equal Marc Trestman's first two seasons.

[Rutnstrut]

You could save people the reading by saying. The Bears still SUCK, and will continue to for many years!!!

[Pugger]

May their ineptitude continue for years.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Da Bears are 2-7 but they've beaten both Detriot and Minnesota for their only wins thus far this season.

Ted's Team has dug itself a very deep hole, especially with that Custer-fucked 4 games losing streak - something Sherman's Teams never once went through (4-12 was Ted's Team). Odds are the Packers are gonna need help from da Bears.

When's the last time Da Bears swept both the Pussycats and Queens in a season?

[Zool]

Da Bears are 2-7 but they've beaten both Detriot and Minnesota for their only wins thus far this season.

Ted's Team has dug itself a very deep hole, especially with that Custer-fucked 4 games losing streak - something Sherman's Teams never once went through (4-12 was Ted's Team). Odds are the Packers are gonna need help from da Bears.

When's the last time Da Bears swept both the Pussycats and Queens in a season?

Is this akin to your 4 year drought on getting a woman to touch you in your bits? Something Mike Sherman never went through even with his PSL body.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Is this akin to your 4 year drought on getting a woman to touch you in your bits? Something Mike Sherman never went through even with his PSL body.

What 4 year drought? As a Marxist, I like sharing my so-called wealth. Women are naturally greedy. I don't mind paying a woman for her time. :)

Now back to topic. Yes, Packers are gonna need Bears help...

[gbgary]

May their ineptitude continue for years.

this!

[Patler]

If the Packers tie with the Vikings for season record, so long as the Packers beat the Vikings, the Packers will have the tie breaker against the Vikings because the vikings will have at least 4 losses in the division and the worst GB could be is 3-3. If the Packers win out, they are guaranteed at least to tie the Vikings in the standings.

If the Packers tie with the Lions for seasons record, but beat the Lions, the Packers have the tie breaker against the Lions in head to head matchup. If the Packers win out, they only need the Lions to lose one additional game for GB to be guaranteed a standings tie with the Lions.

Summary - If the Packers win out, one other loss by the Lions guarantees the division to GB, regardless of what the Vikings do.

I think...............................

[gbgary]

min has dal, ind, and us, to play. that's 3 loses hopefully for them.

[Patler]

min has dal, ind, and us, to play. that's 3 loses hopefully for them.

and they have lost twice to the Lions and once to the Bears. They need to reverse their tail spin, and have a lot of things go their way to have a chance. Even if the Vikings were to win out, they need to have the Lions lose twice and they have no control since they have lost twice already to them.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

min has dal, ind, and us, to play. that's 3 loses hopefully for them.

Detriot has:

@ Saints
Bears
@Giants
@Cowboys
Packers

No cupcakes.

Anyone thinks the Packers can beat the Seafags?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

If the Packers tie with the Vikings for season record, so long as the Packers beat the Vikings, the Packers will have the tie breaker against the Vikings because the vikings will have at least 4 losses in the division and the worst GB could be is 3-3. If the Packers win out, they are guaranteed at least to tie the Vikings in the standings.

If the Packers tie with the Lions for seasons record, but beat the Lions, the Packers have the tie breaker against the Lions in head to head matchup. If the Packers win out, they only need the Lions to lose one additional game for GB to be guaranteed a standings tie with the Lions.

Summary - If the Packers win out, one other loss by the Lions guarantees the division to GB, regardless of what the Vikings do.

I think...............................

Big IF about Pack winning out, for, the Polar Bear hasn't done a fucking thing about the miseries at corner and ILB. Plus, the offense is too inconsistent. Plus, too many weaknesses.

To quote Alphaville, I am hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Is Murphy gonna drop the bomb on Ted or not?

[gbgary]

Detriot has:

@ Saints
Bears
@Giants
@Cowboys
Packers

No cupcakes.

Anyone thinks the Packers can beat the Seafags?

it stacks up well for the Packers really...if they continue to trend up.

the ospreys game is our toughest.

[Pugger]

it stacks up well for the Packers really...if they continue to trend up.

the ospreys game is our toughest.

Their D is still tough but if we keep Wilson from running wild we have a chance...

[hoosier]

it stacks up well for the Packers really...if they continue to trend up.

the ospreys game is our toughest.

Seems to me that is a mighty big IF. They've played exactly one good game since their month-long impersonation of the Browns. I would like to see them string together a few solid showings before I start thinking about them running the table.

[Fritz]

The Bears have been awful since Lovie left. Just awful.

Is there a lesson in there for Packer fans? Fire the guy that gets you to 10-6 most years, gets you into the playoffs, maybe has one SB appearance to show for it - not good enough. But the alternative, in the Bears' case, has been firing coaches every couple years, trying the new hot coordinator/CFL refugee, then trying the trusty ol' veteran coach. Then a new GM. Let's sign free agents! No, wait, let's draft and develop!

[gbgary]

Seems to me that is a mighty big IF. They've played exactly one good game since their month-long impersonation of the Browns. I would like to see them string together a few solid showings before I start thinking about them running the table.

true but you have to admit the o has looked much better the last few weeks. the osprey game will tell us a lot.

[beveaux1]

The Bears have been awful since Lovie left. Just awful.

Is there a lesson in there for Packer fans? Fire the guy that gets you to 10-6 most years, gets you into the playoffs, maybe has one SB appearance to show for it - not good enough. But the alternative, in the Bears' case, has been firing coaches every couple years, trying the new hot coordinator/CFL refugee, then trying the trusty ol' veteran coach. Then a new GM. Let's sign free agents! No, wait, let's draft and develop!

+1 Be careful what you wish for.

[woodbuck27]

Detriot has:

@ Saints
Bears
@Giants
@Cowboys
Packers

No cupcakes.

Anyone thinks the Packers can beat the Seafags?

The Seahawks can be had on any given Sunday even at home.

Russell Wilson (has lost his legs) just isn't the same this season and they miss their crunching RB.

[woodbuck27]

Detriot has:

@ Saints
Bears
@Giants
@Cowboys
Packers

No cupcakes.

Anyone thinks the Packers can beat the Seafags?

This week is huge for the Pack.

We need a Dallas win tonight....that will happen.

Drew Brees has to be at his best at home Vs the Lions this Sunday.

It all really begins right there.

[Patler]

Seems to me that is a mighty big IF. They've played exactly one good game since their month-long impersonation of the Browns. I would like to see them string together a few solid showings before I start thinking about them running the table.

I hope you didn't take my post as suggesting that I think they will run the table, my intent was just to show that if they did they actually are in good shape to win the division, all things considered. If they do, MN is out of the picture. If they do, Detroit only has to lose one other game for GB to win the division. They don't need a lot of help, they control their own destiny, needing only one other team to beat Detroit.

[hoosier]

I hope you didn't take my post as suggesting that I think they will run the table, my intent was just to show that if they did they actually are in good shape to win the division, all things considered. If they do, MN is out of the picture. If they do, Detroit only has to lose one other game for GB to win the division. They don't need a lot of help, they control their own destiny, needing only one other team to beat Detroit.

I didn't think you were suggesting they would run the table, and I wasn't reacting only to your post. What I was hearing from several posters in this thread was some renewed optimism following the Eagles game. Nobody, except maybe for the quarterback, was talking about running the table after the Redskins gaem. Fine, I get that and I share the optimism to an extent--it's much easier to see the bright side of a team when they play a relatively complete game. But I also have a hard time believing that the problems that became apparent in November are now in the past. I hope they run the table but I think it is highly unlikely.

[woodbuck27]

I hope you didn't take my post as suggesting that I think they will run the table, my intent was just to show that if they did they actually are in good shape to win the division, all things considered. If they do, MN is out of the picture. If they do, Detroit only has to lose one other game for GB to win the division. They don't need a lot of help, they control their own destiny, needing only one other team to beat Detroit.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-16eYuuapMr0/U5oVUSrGHPI/AAAAAAAAJBM/Tsbzv-HVgXU/s1600/smiley-crossing-fingers.png

[Patler]

Back to the original discussion of the Bears, Cutler is done for the year, having been placed on IR.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The question now becomes where will he end up next season, as there's no way Chicago keeps him under his current contract.

I wonder if Cleveland will make a run at him.

[ThunderDan]

The question now becomes where will he end up next season, as there's no way Chicago keeps him under his current contract.

I wonder if Cleveland will make a run at him.

He's going back to Denver. They are a QB away from the Super Bowl.:-)

[Cheesehead Craig]

He's going back to Denver. They are a QB away from the Super Bowl.:-)

If he went there, they still would be.

[QBME]

He's going back to Denver. They are a QB away from the Super Bowl.:-)

Elway's not stupid.

Romo to Denver.
Garrapolo to Chicago.
Cutler to Cleveland (only team dumb enough to make the move).

[Patler]

Back to the original discussion of the Bears, Cutler is done for the year, having been placed on IR.

Interesting development today, the Chicago Tribune, in an article on the Bears injury report, stated that the Bears have not put Cutler on IR. He is still listed on the Bears' roster. NFL website does not list Cutler on their transaction list as of today, but CBS Sports still does.


Thursday, December 1, 2016
Team Player Transaction
Buffalo Bills Shamiel Gary pract. squad add from Patriots
Buffalo Bills Joe Powell pract. squad del
Chicago Bears Jay Cutler on IR, torn labrum right shoulder

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/transactions/

[Pugger]

Back to the original discussion of the Bears, Cutler is done for the year, having been placed on IR.

Is this the final year of his contract with Chicago? If so I wonder where he'll end up next...

[Pugger]

Elway's not stupid.

Romo to Denver.
Garrapolo to Chicago.
Cutler to Cleveland (only team dumb enough to make the move).

Romo? Elway would be stupid there. Poor Tony can't take another hit.

[QBME]

Romo? Elway would be stupid there. Poor Tony can't take another hit.

That was the general consensus a couple of years ago regarding Peyton Manning. All he did was win a Superbowl.

[ThunderDan]

That was the general consensus a couple of years ago regarding Peyton Manning. All he did was win a Superbowl.

All he was was the anchor that stopped the team from a shot at a perfect season.

[pbmax]

Interesting development today, the Chicago Tribune, in an article on the Bears injury report, stated that the Bears have not put Cutler on IR. He is still listed on the Bears' roster. NFL website does not list Cutler on their transaction list as of today, but CBS Sports still does.

Brad Biggs said despite bak of IR, there was also talk of him still returning sooner rather than later. Not sure what this means, though obviously someone wants us to believe he could rehab his way back to the field.

[woodbuck27]

Romo? Elway would be stupid there. Poor Tony can't take another hit.

Pugger you may well be very correct. We are aware of Tony Romo`s humility now giving sway to new sensation Dak Prescott.

Is the humilty or simply an admission of ìt`s time to retire. He has had a remarkable career in terms of his personal contributions.

[Patler]

Brad Biggs said despite bak of IR, there was also talk of him still returning sooner rather than later. Not sure what this means, though obviously someone wants us to believe he could rehab his way back to the field.

It would make some sense not to put him on IR, to downplay the significance of the injury if they are, in fact, wanting to trade him in the off season.

The odd thing is that news services reported that he was put on IR. I think most get their transactions info directly from the NFL. I would be curious to know how the mistake originated, since as of a while ago CBS Sports still lists it on their transactions list.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

They don't need a lot of help, they control their own destiny, needing only one other team to beat Detroit.

I don't think that's controlling one's own destiny b/c when you need another team's help, fate's out of your hand regardless of what you do.

2010, the Packers didn't control their destiny til D-Jax took that improbable punt to the house to beat the Giants. Thompson REALLY do need to FedEx D-Jax a Super Bowl 45 ring.

[Patler]

I don't think that's controlling one's own destiny b/c when you need another team's help, fate's out of your hand regardless of what you do.


I wrote they don't need a lot of help, I didn't say they don't need any help. I stated in several posts that they need the lions to lose one other game. Obviously, GB does not control that game result. However, I fully expect the lions to lose one other game, so that caused to to omit "mostly" in stating they control their own fate. I think my intent was clear to everyone, except perhaps you.

[Patler]

2010, the Packers didn't control their destiny til D-Jax took that improbable punt to the house to beat the Giants. Thompson REALLY do need to FedEx D-Jax a Super Bowl 45 ring.

What does 2010 have to do with this year, or to this discussion?

[QBME]

All he was was the anchor that stopped the team from a shot at a perfect season.
But still won a super bowl.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I wrote they don't need a lot of help, I didn't say they don't need any help. I stated in several posts that they need the lions to lose one other game. Obviously, GB does not control that game result. However, I fully expect the lions to lose one other game, so that caused to to omit "mostly" in stating they control their own fate. I think my intent was clear to everyone, except perhaps you.

Expecting the Lions to lose a game, no matter how likely, doesn't change damn thing at this point in space-time: the Packers currently DO NOT control their destiny - thanks in large part to the 4 game losing streak (something Sherman's teams never experienced).

[Patler]

Expecting the Lions to lose a game, no matter how likely, doesn't change damn thing at this point in space-time: the Packers currently DO NOT control their destiny - thanks in large part to the 4 game losing streak (something Sherman's teams never experienced).

Did I not write in at least three different posts that they need someone else to beat the Lions?
Did I not say that my expectation that the Lions would lose another game caused me to omit "mostly" in stating they control their own fate?
Did I ever write that my expectation caused them to control their own destiny?

Since I repeated at least four times in three different posts that they need another team to beat the Lions, I submit that the intent of my post was clear to everyone except perhaps you, especially since you apparently also misread the post you quoted in your last message.

So, what does 2010 have to do with this???

[Patler]

- thanks in large part to the 4 game losing streak (something Sherman's teams never experienced).

Something else that Sherman's teams never experienced - winning an NFC Championship game.
Another thing that Sherman's teams never experienced - even playing in an NFC Championship game by winnnig a Division playoff game
Yet another thing that Sherman's teams never experienced - playing in a Super Bowl.
Still another thing never experienced by Sherman's teams - winning a Super Bowl.

MM's/TT's teams have done all of the above. I'm surprised you haven't pointed that out to us!?

[Pugger]

Something else that Sherman's teams never experienced - winning an NFC Championship game.
Another thing that Sherman's teams never experienced - even playing in an NFC Championship game by winnnig a Division playoff game
Yet another thing that Sherman's teams never experienced - playing in a Super Bowl.
Still another thing never experienced by Sherman's teams - winning a Super Bowl.

MM's/TT's teams have done all of the above. I'm surprised you haven't pointed that out to us!?

This goof is still pining for Sherman - the guy who can't even get a job in D-3 today.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Did I not write in at least three different posts that they need someone else to beat the Lions?
Did I not say that my expectation that the Lions would lose another game caused me to omit "mostly" in stating they control their own fate?
Did I ever write that my expectation caused them to control their own destiny?

Since I repeated at least four times in three different posts that they need another team to beat the Lions, I submit that the intent of my post was clear to everyone except perhaps you, especially since you apparently also misread the post you quoted in your last message.

So, what does 2010 have to do with this???

You wrote, and I'll quote again: "(The Packers) control their own destiny, needing only one other team to beat Detroit."

That's like saying, "This is not Detroit man, this is the Super Bowl!", in a game that clearly wasn't the Super Bowl.

Stop contradicting yourself and see the error of your ways. :)

At this point, Packers DON'T control their own destiny. If Detriot goes 4-0 in the next 4 weeks, they will clinch the North no matter what the Packers do - in this case, the finale would be meaningless in terms of winning the division.

2010 is an example of how the Pack eventually ended up controlling its "own destiny"...Thanks, D-Jax!

[hoosier]

Expecting the Lions to lose a game, no matter how likely, doesn't change damn thing at this point in space-time: the Packers currently DO NOT control their destiny - thanks in large part to the 4 game losing streak (something Sherman's teams never experienced).

You might want to take another look at Shermy's last season. The first four games, to be specific.

[ThunderDan]

You might want to take another look at Shermy's last season. The first four games, to be specific.

But in Tank's world that was TT's year. Sherman kills the depth and talent as GM for years, hands a depleted team in cap trouble to TT, then blames TT for not being able to turn the team around top to bottom in 6 months.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

But in Tank's world that was TT's year

Correct. 4-12 was Ted's Team.

You don't go 10-6 one year with a still productive, Canton-bound QB and then 4-12 the next - unless you dismantle the team. Thompson dismantled Sherman's playoffs team. The Polar Bear conspired to tank that season, partly b/c he wanted a top 10 pick and partly b/c he needed an excuse to fire Sherman, who averaged 11 wins as GM/Coach.

The irony, to some, is that Thompson, a cheap-ass, gave Sherman a lucrative contract extension prior to the season. I don't think Thompson is cheap. He's just incompetent. Just as Alvarez lacked the skill to lure elite QBs to Wisconsin, the Polar Bear lacks the skill to lure elite free agents to Green Bay despite tons of resources.

[Teamcheez1]

Criticizing TT and MM is fair game, but when you couple that with bestowing laurels upon Mike Sherman, you have gone off the deep end.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Criticizing TT and MM is fair game, but when you couple that with bestowing laurels upon Mike Sherman, you have gone off the deep end.

What's with the "hate" for the Shermaninator? Many uncool Pack fans seem to think Sherman was a worse GM/Coach than Dan Devine.

Sherman averaged 11 wins as GM/Coach. Never missed the playoffs. Utilized all aspects of the game.

And the 2004 Packers ended up with the 24th pick. Team started, what, 1-4? Sherman got team out of that hole. Had team not make the playoffs and ended up with a top 20 pick, no way Thompson drafts the Great Arm of Butte.

[Freak Out]

SF must really suck.

[pbmax]

Correct. 4-12 was Ted's Team.

You don't go 10-6 one year with a still productive, Canton-bound QB and then 4-12 the next - unless you dismantle the team. Thompson dismantled Sherman's playoffs team. The Polar Bear conspired to tank that season, partly b/c he wanted a top 10 pick and partly b/c he needed an excuse to fire Sherman, who averaged 11 wins as GM/Coach.


Always forgetting the salary cap problem that Patler broke down for us.

[run pMc]

Always forgetting the salary cap problem that Patler broke down for us.

Well, that. Plus I seem to recall that being the year basically everybody got hurt (Driver, Ferguson, Walker, Terrence Murphy(!)) and the Taco Wallaces and Samkon Gados of the world played on the same field as almighty Bert. That much attrition was worse than last year at WR.


Sherman was a better coach than GM, and it isn't even close. (B.J Sander? Joe Johnson?)
I think he was a decent coach, actually, although I thought him too deferential to Favre, and his failure to go for it on 4th and 1 against the Eagles towards the end of the 4th and 26th game still makes me shake my head.

[hoosier]

Correct. 4-12 was Ted's Team.

You don't go 10-6 one year with a still productive, Canton-bound QB and then 4-12 the next - unless you dismantle the team. Thompson dismantled Sherman's playoffs team. The Polar Bear conspired to tank that season, partly b/c he wanted a top 10 pick and partly b/c he needed an excuse to fire Sherman, who averaged 11 wins as GM/Coach.

Interesting. So what exactly does "dismantling" a team with aging stars that lost a home wildcard game by two TDs to Minnesota entail? Was it letting the starting guards go? Was that the difference between 10-6 and 4-12?

[Guiness]

Well, that. Plus I seem to recall that being the year basically everybody got hurt (Driver, Ferguson, Walker, Terrence Murphy(!)) and the Taco Wallaces and Samkon Gados of the world played on the same field as almighty Bert. That much attrition was worse than last year at WR.


Sherman was a better coach than GM, and it isn't even close. (B.J Sander? Joe Johnson?)


lol at the Joe Johnson mention! Haven't heard that name in a while. The guy did not miss many games, other than a lost season in '99. He played 16 games in 97, 98, 00 and 01. Gets to GB and the wheels fall right off the wagon.

[Patler]

- thanks in large part to the 4 game losing streak ([B]something Sherman's teams never experienced).


You might want to take another look at Shermy's last season. The first four games, to be specific.

Or, you might want to look at weeks, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the 2004 season, when Sherman was both GM and HC.

[Patler]

You don't go 10-6 one year with a still productive, Canton-bound QB and then 4-12 the next - unless you dismantle the team. Thompson dismantled Sherman's playoffs team. The Polar Bear conspired to tank that season, partly b/c he wanted a top 10 pick and partly b/c he needed an excuse to fire Sherman, who averaged 11 wins as GM/Coach.


You might want to look more closely at that 10-6 team. They won 10 games without beating a single team that ended the season with a winning record. That was part of the sham of Sherman's teams. They played in a weak division, and had some "fortunate" schedules. His teams were growing progressively less competitive, but still managed to reach the playoffs because of the weak division they played in, and some weak overall schedules.

There wasn't much to dismantle from his last team. He had done most of it himself.

[Zool]

What's with the "hate" for the Shermaninator? Many uncool Pack fans seem to think Sherman was a worse GM/Coach than Dan Devine.

Sherman averaged 11 wins as GM/Coach. Never missed the playoffs. Utilized all aspects of the game.

And the 2004 Packers ended up with the 24th pick. Team started, what, 1-4? Sherman got team out of that hole. Had team not make the playoffs and ended up with a top 20 pick, no way Thompson drafts the Great Arm of Butte.

He was handed Favre and Ahman Green. I could coach them to a winning record.

[Fritz]

I still think Ahman Green was the best running back to wear a Packers uniform in many, many, many years. That guy was a monster, and he was fast. I think he blocked okay, too.

[Patler]

I still think Ahman Green was the best running back to wear a Packers uniform in many, many, many years. That guy was a monster, and he was fast. I think he blocked okay, too.

Yes, very good blocker, and great out of the backfield as a receiver. People tend to forget that when he first came to GB he would have 50-70 receptions a year for 400-600 yards. As the Packers found other capable 3rd down backs, passing situations became opportunities to rest him and better manage his asthma. He was as complete of a RB as there was. Even threw a few option passes.

[Joemailman]

From 2000-2004 Ahman Green had over 9000 yards rushing and receiving, including 2250 in 2003. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GreeAh00.htm

He never got the recognition he deserved. Part of that was being overshadowed by Favre, and part was lack of postseason success.

[Fritz]

Agreed. He was way, way better than Eddie Lacy. Hands down. Due could run with power, with speed, catch a pass, and even block. And once he put those forearm pads on, he even stopped fumbling!

[Smidgeon]

Ahman Green was closers to AP than most backs get.

[run pMc]

Yeah, I watched some GB highlights of Ahman Green, Ryan Grant, and Eddie Lacy. Ahman Green was the best of those three and it's not even close.

[run pMc]

Back to the topic: screw the bears. I hope they always lose, and even if they don't they'll always suck.

[hoosier]

Don't forget that Green had the benefit of a good to great offensive line with great continuity from one year to another. He may have had better tools than Grant or Lacy but his circumstances were also better.