Bears QBs, Cutler's future, the Bears generally

[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!