U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Merry Christmas!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:07 AM
 
10,714 posts, read 18,361,389 times
Reputation: 3606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire View Post
The Bears were 9-6 in 2008 in games Orton started. 2-1 in 2007. 10-5 in 2005.

Aaron Rogers was 6-10 in 2008 in games started.
The Bears will always be mediocre with Orton at the helm. He represents "settling", and not really striving for any sort of future greatness. Being 9-6 in the hapless NFC North represents mediocrity. Jerry Angelo should be fired (or the McCaskey's should open their pocket books).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Chicago
156 posts, read 215,353 times
Reputation: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire View Post
The Bears were 9-6 in 2008 in games Orton started. 2-1 in 2007. 10-5 in 2005.

Aaron Rogers was 6-10 in 2008 in games started.

Yes, although you can't pin all of a team's successes (or its failures, for that matter), on the performance of the QB. Green Bay's 6-10 record was largely the result of the collapse of their defense during the second half of the season. Rodgers' performance was superior to Orton's.

Rodgers: 28 TDs, 13 INTs, QB rating of 93.8 (third best in the NFC)

Orton: 18 TDs, 12 INTs, QB rating of 79.6 (thirteenth in the NFC)

Granted, Orton was injured, but he still started 15 out of 16 games, certainly not enough to account for the disparity in performance.

Having said that, it's certainly possible to win a Super Bowl without a dominant QB. The best, most recent examples include the 2002 Tampa Bay team with Brad Johnson and the 2000 Baltimore Ravens with Trent Dilfer, both of which had punishing defenses.

But one need look no further than the Steelers this year to see how defense can supersede dominant QB play (questionable calls in the Super Bowl aside). Rothlisberger's regular season stats weren't so different from Orton's...17 TD's, 15 INT's, and a QB rating of 80.1.

The bottom line is that if the Bears' defense can return to its dominance of a couple years ago, a Super Bowl berth with Orton at the helm is certainly plausible. Unfortunately for them, some of their key defensive players are getting a little long in the tooth and/or are battling injuries. Plus their problems on the O-line need to be addressed...you can have Orton throwing to Steve Smith, Andre Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald, but if he's on his back for most of the game, it's still tough to score.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Chicago
15,589 posts, read 13,353,560 times
Reputation: 1761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lookout Kid View Post
...Being 9-6 in the hapless NFC North represents mediocrity...
Thus being 6-10 (The Packers) in the NFC North means your team sucks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Chicago
15,589 posts, read 13,353,560 times
Reputation: 1761
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLordYourGod View Post
... Rodgers' performance was superior to Orton's.

Rodgers: 28 TDs, 13 INTs, QB rating of 93.8 (third best in the NFC)

Orton: 18 TDs, 12 INTs, QB rating of 79.6 (thirteenth in the NFC)

Granted, Orton was injured, but he still started 15 out of 16 games, certainly not enough to account for the disparity in performance...
The Packers WR's are far superior to the Bears. They do not drop the amount of passes that the Bears WR's do. That is the main reason for the difference in stats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Chicago
156 posts, read 215,353 times
Reputation: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire View Post
Being 6-10 (The Packers) in the NFC North means your team sucks.
Any team that can't win the NFC North sucks. This is a division that saw the Lions go winless, and the eventual-champion Vikings display an offense so one-dimensional a high school coach could have developed a sound game plan against them.

Although I think the Vikings aren't that far from being a really good team, especially now that the T.Jackson experiment seems to be over. They still have a sound defense and the best RB in the NFL. Tough combination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Chicago, Illinois
3,020 posts, read 5,988,540 times
Reputation: 1311
Yes, the Vikings clearly are the front runners. However, how good can a team be when they wear purple? j/k as the Ravens are purty darn good but they sport mostly black opposed to all that purple jazz that the Vikes wear. Seriously though, the Vikings are supreme choke artists and have never won anything. Even if they somehow got Cutler over Rosenfels, I still think they'd find a way to choke down the stretch like they usually do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Chicago
156 posts, read 215,353 times
Reputation: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire View Post
The Packers WR's are far superior to the Bears. They do not drop the amount of passes that the Bears WR's do. That is the main reason for the difference in stats.
Although I think the Packers' receivers are superior, they tend to drop their fair share of passes.

iWon - NFL League Stats
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 01:55 PM
 
10,714 posts, read 18,361,389 times
Reputation: 3606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire View Post
Thus being 6-10 (The Packers) in the NFC North means your team sucks.
Yep, they sucked it up last year. But Rodgers sure looks promising! In spite of the bad record, I have to say I like our future prospects. Meanwhile, the Bears are showing no hope of improvement, and seem to be a team on the decline. They'll have to get very lucky in the draft to turn it around (and you just never know what treasures may pop up from the lower rounds).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 01:57 PM
 
10,714 posts, read 18,361,389 times
Reputation: 3606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire View Post
The Packers WR's are far superior to the Bears. They do not drop the amount of passes that the Bears WR's do. That is the main reason for the difference in stats.
The Packer's wide receivers are better. And so is their quarterback. The rest of the team? Well, maybe the secondary is somewhat decent...

My money is on the Vikings this season.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2009, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Chicago--Bucktown
425 posts, read 907,391 times
Reputation: 168
I'd still have to pick the Packers. Rodgers does look to be a very good QB pretty soon. The secondary is alledgedly really good (though they looked pretty weak at times, especially against New Orleans). I don't think the Vikings are all that good, and I'm still not too impressed with Peterson as a running back. He gets bottled up at the line too easily, doesn't seem to effectively make the first guy miss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top