Hey Pack, ... Time to feed Da BEARS !

[Fred's Slacks]

Okay, let me go slower. See football is a team sport. It's not just a QB and his receivers on the field. The o line needs to pass protect in order to have any chance at success in the passing game. You also need a running game to take pressure off the passing game. The Bears have had each of these. The Packers have been very inconsistent in both of these. Many of us did think that the oline would be better this year because we didn't see our LT (who played in the Probowl last year) dropping off the charts.

So now tell me how I didn't address your main topics?

You said Ortons stats aren't as good because he doesn't have WRs. I said Rodgers didn't have an o line. One could make the argument that when a QB has time even terrible WR's will be able to get open. I don't care how good your WR's are, if the QB doesn't have time it's easy to shut down a passing game. I'm sorry I don't have a whiteboard to draw this out for you.

You then said that you knew the Pack would be worse with out Favre and that they will be worse again with out Jennings, as if this was some kind of astute observation. Kind of like saying, "Gee, Adrian Peterson is hard to replace". Kind of obvious, isn't it? Well yes. You were right. And most here agreed. I don't know of anyone who predicted us to go 13-3 this year. I think the majority said 9-7 or 10-6. I thought 11-5 might be attainable. Yes, I was way off but having seen every game, I know the difference has been OLine play and lately defensive play, not so much QB play.

[Dabaddestbear]

Okay, let me go slower. See football is a team sport. It's not just a QB and his receivers on the field. The o line needs to pass protect in order to have any chance at success in the passing game. You also need a running game to take pressure off the passing game. The Bears have had each of these. The Packers have been very inconsistent in both of these. Many of us did think that the oline would be better this year because we didn't see our LT (who played in the Probowl last year) dropping off the charts.

So now tell me how I didn't address your main topics?

You said Ortons stats aren't as good because he doesn't have WRs.

There you go making up stuff again...lol.
I said his stats are compairable to ORtons although he doesnt have any WR's. SO if stats arent good, neither is Rodgers.

.... I said Rodgers didn't have an o line. One could make the argument that when a QB has time even terrible WR's will be able to get open. I don't care how good your WR's are, if the QB doesn't have time it's easy to shut down a passing game. I'm sorry I don't have a whiteboard to draw this out for you.

You then said that you knew the Pack would be worse with out Favre and that they will be worse again with out Jennings, as if this was some kind of astute observation. Kind of like saying, "Gee, Adrian Peterson is hard to replace". Kind of obvious, isn't it? Well yes. You were right. And most here agreed. I don't know of anyone who predicted us to go 13-3 this year. I think the majority said 9-7 or 10-6. I thought 11-5 might be attainable. Yes, I was way off but having seen every game, I know the difference has been OLine play and lately defensive play, not so much QB play.

The rest of your argument we can debate back and forth. But I will leave it at that..lol. Now to the games today..lol.

[Fred's Slacks]

You said Ortons stats aren't as good because he doesn't have WRs.

There you go making up stuff again...lol.
I said his stats are compairable to ORtons although he doesnt have any WR's. SO if stats arent good, neither is Rodgers.

Whose making stuff up?

Key word there was AS. So if you say they are compareable you couldn't possibly mean that Ortons were better. Maybe I give you too much credit? I never said their stats weren't good but it's easy to see the difference. Rodgers 92.1 vs Orton 80.1(70.7 career and 59.7 in his first year when you had Moose and Berrian). You're right though, 80.1 is not very good.

[denverYooper]

Orton has better TEs and a decent receiving RB in Forte.

[ThunderDan]

Lets just look at the stats.

Rodgers - 276/434 63.6% 3,192 yards 22 td 11 int 92.1 pr

Orton - 236/401 58.9% 2,586 yards 15 td 10 int 80.1 pr
Grossman - 32/62 51.6% 257 yards 2 td 2 int 59.7 pr

Chicago Total - 268/463 57.9% 2,843 yards 17 td 12 int 77.2 pr

Chicago has played 1 extra game and you still are almost 350 yards in passing offense behind. Your offense ranks 26th in total yards and 21st in passing.

[Dabaddestbear]

Lets just look at the stats.

Rodgers - 276/434 63.6% 3,192 yards 22 td 11 int 92.1 pr

Orton - 236/401 58.9% 2,586 yards 15 td 10 int 80.1 pr
Grossman - 32/62 51.6% 257 yards 2 td 2 int 59.7 pr

Chicago Total - 268/463 57.9% 2,843 yards 17 td 12 int 77.2 pr

Chicago has played 1 extra game and you still are almost 350 yards in passing offense behind. Your offense ranks 26th in total yards and 21st in passing.

Which proves my point. -- NO WR's, so they have no choice but to throw to the TE's and RB's, which of course on a regular will run routes nowhere near as deep as your average WR. So Of course they will have less yards...duh.
--Thank you for helping me out, although you thought you were accomplishing something there for the sake of the argument on the other side.

And somehow some of you flake brains keep trying to argu with me about how good Orton isnt. My argument is not that, but that Rodgers show me nothing different. His WR's get open deep waaaay better than the Bears. That equals more yards. Why you all keep showing me stats is a wonder to me.

Just keep in mind that YOU all said Rodgers will be great. I SAID Orton will be average. We will see who's prediction comes closer to fruition in the years to come.

[Fred's Slacks]

Lets just look at the stats.

Rodgers - 276/434 63.6% 3,192 yards 22 td 11 int 92.1 pr

Orton - 236/401 58.9% 2,586 yards 15 td 10 int 80.1 pr
Grossman - 32/62 51.6% 257 yards 2 td 2 int 59.7 pr

Chicago Total - 268/463 57.9% 2,843 yards 17 td 12 int 77.2 pr

Chicago has played 1 extra game and you still are almost 350 yards in passing offense behind. Your offense ranks 26th in total yards and 21st in passing.

Which proves my point. -- NO WR's, so they have no choice but to throw to the TE's and RB's, which of course on a regular will run routes nowhere near as deep as your average WR. So Of course they will have less yards...duh.
--Thank you for helping me out, although you thought you were accomplishing something there for the sake of the argument on the other side.

And just how does that prove that Orton is better? You're stretching. I give up. There's no convincing some people. I know you were hoping that when Favre left we'd struggle to find a QB for many years. I don't want to burst your bubble. So go ahead. Orton is better.

[Fred's Slacks]

Lets just look at the stats.

Rodgers - 276/434 63.6% 3,192 yards 22 td 11 int 92.1 pr

Orton - 236/401 58.9% 2,586 yards 15 td 10 int 80.1 pr
Grossman - 32/62 51.6% 257 yards 2 td 2 int 59.7 pr

Chicago Total - 268/463 57.9% 2,843 yards 17 td 12 int 77.2 pr

Chicago has played 1 extra game and you still are almost 350 yards in passing offense behind. Your offense ranks 26th in total yards and 21st in passing.

Which proves my point. -- NO WR's, so they have no choice but to throw to the TE's and RB's, which of course on a regular will run routes nowhere near as deep as your average WR. So Of course they will have less yards...duh.
--Thank you for helping me out, although you thought you were accomplishing something there for the sake of the argument on the other side.

And somehow some of you flake brains keep trying to argu with me about how good Orton isnt. My argument is not that, but that Rodgers show me nothing different. His WR's get open deep waaaay better than the Bears. That equals more yards. Why you all keep showing me stats is a wonder to me.

Just keep in mind that YOU all said Rodgers will be great. I SAID Orton will be average. We will see who's prediction comes closer to fruition in the years to come.

Just keep hurling insults. You might fool someone into thinking your right. It's gotta work better then your weak ass arguments.

[Dabaddestbear]

Lets just look at the stats.

Rodgers - 276/434 63.6% 3,192 yards 22 td 11 int 92.1 pr

Orton - 236/401 58.9% 2,586 yards 15 td 10 int 80.1 pr
Grossman - 32/62 51.6% 257 yards 2 td 2 int 59.7 pr

Chicago Total - 268/463 57.9% 2,843 yards 17 td 12 int 77.2 pr

Chicago has played 1 extra game and you still are almost 350 yards in passing offense behind. Your offense ranks 26th in total yards and 21st in passing.

Which proves my point. -- NO WR's, so they have no choice but to throw to the TE's and RB's, which of course on a regular will run routes nowhere near as deep as your average WR. So Of course they will have less yards...duh.
--Thank you for helping me out, although you thought you were accomplishing something there for the sake of the argument on the other side.

And somehow some of you flake brains keep trying to argu with me about how good Orton isnt. My argument is not that, but that Rodgers show me nothing different. His WR's get open deep waaaay better than the Bears. That equals more yards. Why you all keep showing me stats is a wonder to me.

Just keep in mind that YOU all said Rodgers will be great. I SAID Orton will be average. We will see who's prediction comes closer to fruition in the years to come.

Just keep hurling insults. You might fool someone into thinking your right. It's gotta work better then your weak ass arguments.

By the way, Orton WON the last game for the Bears and Rodgers LOST the last game for the Packers.... and the saga continues...lol.

[Dabaddestbear]

Lets just look at the stats.

Rodgers - 276/434 63.6% 3,192 yards 22 td 11 int 92.1 pr

Orton - 236/401 58.9% 2,586 yards 15 td 10 int 80.1 pr
Grossman - 32/62 51.6% 257 yards 2 td 2 int 59.7 pr

Chicago Total - 268/463 57.9% 2,843 yards 17 td 12 int 77.2 pr

Chicago has played 1 extra game and you still are almost 350 yards in passing offense behind. Your offense ranks 26th in total yards and 21st in passing.

Which proves my point. -- NO WR's, so they have no choice but to throw to the TE's and RB's, which of course on a regular will run routes nowhere near as deep as your average WR. So Of course they will have less yards...duh.
--Thank you for helping me out, although you thought you were accomplishing something there for the sake of the argument on the other side.

And just how does that prove that Orton is better? You're stretching. I give up. There's no convincing some people. I know you were hoping that when Favre left we'd struggle to find a QB for many years. I don't want to burst your bubble. So go ahead. Orton is better.

And where did I SAY Orton was better? Their you go making up stuff to stir the pot. I SAID NEITHER WILL BE GREAT!
--Brain dead conversations go nowhere.

[Iron Mike]

First , please accept my apoligises, I have been away for personel reasons an am sorry if this has caused any undue hardship on my behalf. I truly wanted to be here, to rub salt in the gapeing wound of this dismal season your team has had. Atlast I am here, back to my slap happy ways and letting one and all pack fans know, ... Da BEARS own the NFCN !
Again please acept my apoligies for not being here more often, but hey, .... I AM BACK ! and so are "Da BEARS" !

Go BEARS Go !

BEAR DOWN, piss and mold clowns!!!!!!

[easy cheesy]

I KNEW I would get a warn welcome and the understanding of having to deal with an EXwife and relocating, but alass.... not here in packerland ?

Da BEARS are alive and doing FINE thank you very much ! How is LAF ? (Life After Farve) for you less learned ones. Winning a buncha games ? Hows that big "D" doing ? and ur qb, ... what's his name..... Rogers?
Anyways... tis good to be back, back were I am hated, dispiesed and unwanted ! (lol) !

Yes I am ready for the big chill of '08, are you ? Let it snow, let it snow, Let It SNOW !

WOW.... whatever became of the elusive "Jackwagon Bear"? He is "dispiesded" (sic) far and wide.... what a major league yabbo....

[esoxx]

Go BEARS Go !

And take the Cubs with you!

[steve823]

Nice Bumpage Iron Mike...this gave me some good laughs.

[easy cheesy]

And take the Cubs with you!