Manning Jr - Arrested

[Walter34 3]

If these allegations are true then Ricky Manning Jr. should get jail time. At least the victim will be a wealthy man after this.

 

Lost in all of swamp's childish rants is the reality of what the story is about. If it is true as reported, then Manning is a peice of sh!t and the football team ramifications dont matter - he should go to jail. We need to see if what is being reported is true or media bs. If he and his "posse" did beat a defenceless person using a laptop, that is reprehensible. They should just cut him and cut their losses. We lose the pick, but a great deal of the money and cap room could possibly be saved. Other reports state that 5 mill is a roster bonus. If so, they can can him before that date.

 

Hopefully the story is not as its being reported now. We'll see.

[SmartassBoiler 0]

newsflash, homer bear, LOTS is known about the contract. oh, like, for instance, i dunno...$7.5 MILLION DOLLARS IN GUARANTEED MONEY IN YEAR ONE OF THE CONTRACT.

 

read it and weep:

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-b...ov=ap&type=lgns

 

now that we have that little issue solved, feel free to move forward and participate: you think it was a good signing now?

 

You're all about calling Manning a bust signing, before he has even hit the field for the Bears. Aren't you defending Mike Williams from being called the same thing? No, it does not look like a good signing at the moment. However, considering this situation occurred AFTER the Bears signed him to an offer sheet, you're seriously going to hold that against the Bears? Do you honestly believe the Bears would have still signed him had this happened beforehand?

 

I'll reserve judgement until after the season is over. The kid is only 25 years old.

 

You are honestly the most confrontational, hypocritical, miserable little boy I've ever encountered on a message board. You constantly project your homerism onto other more rational fans in an attempt to lower people to your level. Considering nobody wants to be down in Mom's basement with you, you're not getting anywhere.

[DrJ 0]

I know you're arguing with swamp, but I'd like to dispute your statement somewhat.

 

Last I read, the remaining cap space that we have is supposed to be used for a new long-term deal for Backus, who have proven to be a capable offensive lineman. The front office and Backus are currently trying to work out a deal.

 

I also wouldn't call Jon Kitna and Josh McCown "literally nothing" at QB. Kitna has proven to be a good veteran QB, evident by his last starting season, 2003, in which he threw over 3500 yards with 26 TDs and 15 INTs. I think he is underrated. McCown, although he hasn't too done much, has shown promise and may develop into a serviceable starter.

 

I don't think Culpepper or Brees, two of the "pro bowl" QBs you were alluding to, would have been good signings for the Lions with the $$ that they commanded while coming off of serious injuries.

 

They had plenty of cap space, and on top of it they got an 11.75 million cap credit on Shaun Rogers' contract (since he didn't play 90% of the plays on special teams or whatever). And with that, they have made no real spashes whatsoever in FA. You can't tell me Backus is going to take all of that money. They'll probably just give someone another unlikely to be paid bonus so they can tell all of their fans that they actually spent money. And welchdog will eat it up and say that the Fords aren't cheap - look at all the money they pretended to spend!

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the Manning signing. Like I said in the other thread, I don't. But at the same time paying him 7.5 million this year doesn't really hurt the Bears at all, and welchdog is being entirely silly by making that any part of the reason why the contract is bad. What were they going to spend the money on otherwise? Randle-El and Archuletta both went elsewhere, they had some dough to burn. If he ends up making a very low salary over the rest of it and the average salary isn't all that big, it isn't a terrible way to structure it. But welchdog doesn't want to acknowledge those facts, he just wants to grab at straws.

[swamp dog 0]

You're all about calling Manning a bust signing, before he has even hit the field for the Bears. Aren't you defending Mike Williams from being called the same thing? No, it does not look like a good signing at the moment. However, considering this situation occurred AFTER the Bears signed him to an offer sheet, you're seriously going to hold that against the Bears? Do you honestly believe the Bears would have still signed him had this happened beforehand?

 

I'll reserve judgement until after the season is over. The kid is only 25 years old.

 

You are honestly the most confrontational, hypocritical, miserable little boy I've ever encountered on a message board. You constantly project your homerism onto other more rational fans in an attempt to lower people to your level. Considering nobody wants to be down in Mom's basement with you, you're not getting anywhere.

 

i didn't call him a bust. i called him a good nickel back who's not worth $7.5 mill this year--even less now that this story has come out.

[ShaneFalco 0]

They had plenty of cap space, and on top of it they got an 11.75 million cap credit on Shaun Rogers' contract (since he didn't play 90% of the plays on special teams or whatever). And with that, they have made no real spashes whatsoever in FA. You can't tell me Backus is going to take all of that money. They'll probably just give someone another unlikely to be paid bonus so they can tell all of their fans that they actually spent money. And welchdog will eat it up and say that the Fords aren't cheap - look at all the money they pretended to spend!

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the Manning signing. Like I said in the other thread, I don't. But at the same time paying him 7.5 million this year doesn't really hurt the Bears at all, and welchdog is being entirely silly by making that any part of the reason why the contract is bad. What were they going to spend the money on otherwise? Randle-El and Archuletta both went elsewhere, they had some dough to burn. If he ends up making a very low salary over the rest of it and the average salary isn't all that big, it isn't a terrible way to structure it. But welchdog doesn't want to acknowledge those facts, he just wants to grab at straws.

 

If you're going to criticize someone for having a ton of cap space and not signing anyone, criticize the Packers, who have signed almost NO one to date and have much more cap space then the Lions.

 

It's not like the Lions have done nothing in free agency. Although they didn't sign any high-profile guys, they made some moves to shore up their depth, signing Kitna, McCown, FS Bashir, OG Tucker, and LB Paris Lennon, among others. Also, I think you may be overestimating the Lions cap situation. Yes, they had money to spend, but not a ton. If they were to sign a high profile player like say Julian Peterson, they wouldn't have had much cap space to sign depth guys.

 

And, for the record, I am not one to criticize teams, such as the Bears, that make reasonable FA moves to shore up depth. I would rather spend money then not. Manning maybe turn out to be a good player, but he also may not. He definitely has some character issues, but I think the signing was worth it, given his age, talent level, and upside, even if they may have overpaid a tad.

[swamp dog 0]

They had plenty of cap space, and on top of it they got an 11.75 million cap credit on Shaun Rogers' contract (since he didn't play 90% of the plays on special teams or whatever). And with that, they have made no real spashes whatsoever in FA. You can't tell me Backus is going to take all of that money. They'll probably just give someone another unlikely to be paid bonus so they can tell all of their fans that they actually spent money. And welchdog will eat it up and say that the Fords aren't cheap - look at all the money they pretended to spend!

 

I'm not saying that I agree with the Manning signing. Like I said in the other thread, I don't. But at the same time paying him 7.5 million this year doesn't really hurt the Bears at all, and welchdog is being entirely silly by making that any part of the reason why the contract is bad. What were they going to spend the money on otherwise? Randle-El and Archuletta both went elsewhere, they had some dough to burn. If he ends up making a very low salary over the rest of it and the average salary isn't all that big, it isn't a terrible way to structure it. But welchdog doesn't want to acknowledge those facts, he just wants to grab at straws.

 

the lions have signed 16 free agents since march 3 (not counting re-signings of their own free agents).

 

cheers.

 

helluva lot more splash than the bears, who, for a team so close to super bowl decided not to pursue brees and instead throw their pile of money at a nickel corner who hangs out at denny's in the wee hours and beats innocent bystanders unconscious.

 

that's quite the "splash" the bears made this offseason.

[Walter34 3]

the lions have signed 16 free agents since march 3 (not counting re-signings of their own free agents).

 

cheers.

 

helluva lot more splash than the bears, who, for a team so close to super bowl decided not to pursue brees and instead throw their pile of money at a nickel corner who hangs out at denny's in the wee hours and beats innocent bystanders unconscious.

 

that's quite the "splash" the bears made this offseason.

 

Good teams need to fine tune. A dog's breakfast like the Lions roster needs a full overhaul.

 

HTH

[swamp dog 0]

"Not only do they have to give up a 3rd rounder, but they overpaid by a ton.

 

Terrible, terrible move here."--drj, april 22, 2006.

 

see, j? we agree. so why the fuss now? you argue just to argue sometimes

[Yo Son!!! 0]

the lions have signed 16 free agents since march 3 (not counting re-signings of their own free agents).

 

cheers.

 

helluva lot more splash than the bears, who, for a team so close to super bowl decided not to pursue brees and instead throw their pile of money at a nickel corner who hangs out at denny's in the wee hours and beats innocent bystanders unconscious.

 

that's quite the "splash" the bears made this offseason.

 

 

Blah blah blah... All this bickering for nothing because most of the facts about both issues (contract & charges) are still unknown.

 

...but what is known. The entire Detroit Lions team, signed free-agents and all, better grab their laptops and head to Denny's. The Bears are gonna give it to them (and the rest of the division) in similar fashion.

 

 

The Chicago Bears 2006 NFC North Champs

[swamp dog 0]

Blah blah blah... All this bickering for nothing because most of the facts about both issues (contract & charges) are still unknown.

 

...but what is known. The entire Detroit Lions team, signed free-agents and all, better grab their laptops and head to Denny's. The Bears are gonna give it to them (and the rest of the division) in similar fashion.

The Chicago Bears 2006 NFC North Champs

 

that's an interesting rallying chant/metaphor. lots of possibilities for cheers and such. go with it. i like it.

[Yo Son!!! 0]

that's an interesting rallying chant/metaphor. lots of possibilities for cheers and such. go with it. i like it.

 

 

I thought it would catch on.

[DrJ 0]

"Not only do they have to give up a 3rd rounder, but they overpaid by a ton.

 

Terrible, terrible move here."--drj, april 22, 2006.

 

see, j? we agree. so why the fuss now? you argue just to argue sometimes

 

If it ends up being $21 million for 5 years for playing nickle back, I agree it was bad. Even worse...terrible. I said it in that thread, and I said it here. But as others have pointed out, you need to see the structure of the contract first to determine what he needs to do to hit that $21 million. If he only gets $12 of it if he never starts, it's not so bad.

 

Either way, it's worth pointing out that if it were a Lion player you'd be talking about how great of a signing it was, what a huge need nickle CB was and how it freed them up to do so many things in the draft. Millen for President, the man is a friggin genius. So, you needn't really throw any stones at those that have that take on the Manning signing, or anything in between.

[DrJ 0]

the lions have signed 16 free agents since march 3 (not counting re-signings of their own free agents).

 

Besides Kitna and McCown, a bunch of rabble.

 

And the Bears didn't really need Brees, they have 2 QB's they are confident in and just needed some extra veteran insurance that didn't break the bank. The Lions had nothing other than Orlovsky, and on top of it had an 11.75 million cap credit due to lying to the fans and saying they spent 10-15% of their cap last year that they actually didn't. And they went out and got a cheap journeyman that is on the same level as the guy the Bears signed to play backup.

 

Oh well, since they have nothing better to do with their money I guess they put in Rogers contract that he gets 12 million for standing on his head 50% of the plays and pretend that they spent their money again...

[MahSoonerz 0]

I can't believe something like this would happen at a Denny's at 3 in the morning.

 

Indeed. Reminds me, I never heard any follow up on this. Memo to Ricky: you get this out of your system in college, where boosters are at your side to help make it all go away.

 

Speaking as a Panthers homer, I liked Manning's play and hated seeing the Bears grab him from us. Until this. Now, I live in a town where we are a little sensitive about this whole innocent until proven guilty thing these days, so I would wait a few days at least before convicting him of being a turd.

 

Having said that, hahahaha didn't take long for us to not match the offer. You can keep him, I'm sure he'll perform great for the Bears, for 3-5 years and 1000 hours of community service.

 

$7.5 million will buy you a lot of cigarettes in prison. Ricky Manning will be king.

[Sweetness_34 0]

DrJ

 

I just read that 6M of the contract is incentives directly linked to him getting the starting CB position and ints

 

Looks like a very fair deal to me. Nickel backs see as many snaps in today's NFL as the 3rd LB (who sits on nickel and dime downs). So why not pay him something similar.

 

Of course swamp poopie can now return to polishing Suckington's knob

[Walter34 3]

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...ack=1&cset=true

 

Manning, 25, and several friends allegedly beat up a patron in an incident that is still under investigation but which various sources say may not be exactly as initially reported.

 

The Bears are not planning any action on Manning's contract or situation based on the incident, a team official said. Manning is due a $5 million roster bonus within a couple of weeks and the Bears gave no indication of attempting to alter that payment.

 

Manning's contract contains $6 million in incentives based on measures such as playing time and interceptions.

 

A few quotes for lapdog.

 

With the roster bonus and the incentives, that leaves 10 million in other money over the 5 years. Things arent always as the seem are they?

 

The roster bonus was designed to limit Carlinas ability to match. Otherwise, its 2 mill a year and if he starts and produces, he can make more. From a football perspective, I have no problem with the deal or the acquisition. Its actually a smart deal where we take the cap hit this year when we can afford it and then have a favourable cap number for the next 4 years.

 

The legal matters need to be sorted out and this will be the big issue. No excuse for the reported incident if thats the way it happened. The Bears have two weeks to figure it out and decide if they want to cut their losses or if they move forward with Jr. They could still today leave the deal with no cap hit, by cutting him before the roster bonus.

[swamp dog 0]

Good teams need to fine tune. A dog's breakfast like the Lions roster needs a full overhaul.

 

HTH

 

your qbs had a collective rating of 59 last year and your starting qb has 4 career tds and 6 ints.

 

yeah, that position certainly only needs to be "fine tuned"

 

there is no way to give the lions grief for not going after a brees--a team, by yours and j's admission in rebuilding mode anyway--and not skewer angelo for sitting on the qb position yet again and taking a leftover griese.

 

besides, my post was in reference to drj saying the lions haven't done anything in free agency.

 

If it ends up being $21 million for 5 years for playing nickle back, I agree it was bad. Even worse...terrible. I said it in that thread, and I said it here. But as others have pointed out, you need to see the structure of the contract first to determine what he needs to do to hit that $21 million. If he only gets $12 of it if he never starts, it's not so bad.

 

Either way, it's worth pointing out that if it were a Lion player you'd be talking about how great of a signing it was, what a huge need nickle CB was and how it freed them up to do so many things in the draft. Millen for President, the man is a friggin genius. So, you needn't really throw any stones at those that have that take on the Manning signing, or anything in between.

 

we agree manning was a terrible signing. let's do the rogerian argument thing and emphasize that.

 

Besides Kitna and McCown, a bunch of rabble.

 

And the Bears didn't really need Brees, they have 2 QB's they are confident in and just needed some extra veteran insurance that didn't break the bank. The Lions had nothing other than Orlovsky, and on top of it had an 11.75 million cap credit due to lying to the fans and saying they spent 10-15% of their cap last year that they actually didn't. And they went out and got a cheap journeyman that is on the same level as the guy the Bears signed to play backup.

 

Oh well, since they have nothing better to do with their money I guess they put in Rogers contract that he gets 12 million for standing on his head 50% of the plays and pretend that they spent their money again...

 

how convenient the bears were set at qb and didn't need a brees check the stats above. the numbers don't lie: your qbs blow.

[DrJ 0]

we agree manning was a terrible signing. let's do the rogerian argument thing and emphasize that.

 

Nah, I'd say the fact that fans you like to accuse of bias are discussing the signing with very level heads, while if it were a Lions signing you'd be eating it up is more noteworthy.

[Walter34 3]

If Favre retires, our qbs are the best in the division when you look at 1 through 3.

 

They are also the best looking at the future.

 

Not saying that is much considering the sad state of Norris qbs, but I would rather have our current qbs than any set in the division.

 

Chew on that one.

[DrJ 0]

how convenient the bears were set at qb and didn't need a brees check the stats above. the numbers don't lie: your qbs blow.

 

Rex Grossman has a career rating of 68.8, which is better than the rating Harrington has posted heading into last season. It's better than Harrington's career rating even after last season. That didn't stop you from predicting vast improvement for Harrington and that he would be a massive value in FF.

 

The fact that you won't acknowledge that there's a difference between that and the Lions QB's who had 17 career passes to their credit and the Bears situation just proves my point further, that you have no interest in discussing the issue rationally.

 

So go bark up another tree, welchdog.

[SmartassBoiler 0]

i didn't call him a bust. i called him a good nickel back who's not worth $7.5 mill this year--even less now that this story has come out.

 

If it's a "bad signing" then the player is consdiered a bust. You've said virtually the same thing by yapping about how much he's going to make and that he won't be worth it.

 

If a player's value on the field does not live up to the money he signed for, that's the definition of a bust.

[Walter34 3]

Grossman is "confident" this year.

[DrJ 0]

If you're going to criticize someone for having a ton of cap space and not signing anyone, criticize the Packers, who have signed almost NO one to date and have much more cap space then the Lions.

 

It's not like the Lions have done nothing in free agency. Although they didn't sign any high-profile guys, they made some moves to shore up their depth, signing Kitna, McCown, FS Bashir, OG Tucker, and LB Paris Lennon, among others. Also, I think you may be overestimating the Lions cap situation. Yes, they had money to spend, but not a ton. If they were to sign a high profile player like say Julian Peterson, they wouldn't have had much cap space to sign depth guys.

 

And, for the record, I am not one to criticize teams, such as the Bears, that make reasonable FA moves to shore up depth. I would rather spend money then not. Manning maybe turn out to be a good player, but he also may not. He definitely has some character issues, but I think the signing was worth it, given his age, talent level, and upside, even if they may have overpaid a tad.

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../603100325/1126

 

According to this, the Lions were 13.1 million under the cap when it was at 94.5 million. So that put them about 20.5 million under when it was raised.

 

In addition, they got a 11.75 million cap credit for Rogers' contract.

 

So this team had over 30 million available - not much less than the Packers. I'm not overestimating at all.

 

And who knows how much of their money is currently tied up in bonuses that won't be paid....there could be even more money that they are tying up and plan not to spend, like what they did last year.

 

When the cap credit happened, all of the Lions fans at FBG's were talking about how much foresight the Lions had, because they would be able to spend more money than most teams while the CBA was up in the air. Problem with that theory is, they have never spent their money and this year is no different.

[DrJ 0]

And lookie here: http://www.mlive.com/lions/stories/index.s...coll=1#continue

 

They're getting another 2.5 million for ditching Harrington. Would be 6 if it were after June 1st.

 

So the free money that they refuse to spend on quality FA's just keeps piling up...

[swamp dog 0]

If Favre retires, our qbs are the best in the division when you look at 1 through 3.

 

They are also the best looking at the future.

 

Not saying that is much considering the sad state of Norris qbs, but I would rather have our current qbs than any set in the division.

 

Chew on that one.

 

where's the data to support that statement? nowhere. it doesn't exist. not even going to take the bait on that stupidity.

 

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../603100325/1126

 

According to this, the Lions were 13.1 million under the cap when it was at 94.5 million. So that put them about 20.5 million under when it was raised.

 

In addition, they got a 11.75 million cap credit for Rogers' contract.

 

So this team had over 30 million available - not much less than the Packers. I'm not overestimating at all.

 

And who knows how much of their money is currently tied up in bonuses that won't be paid....there could be even more money that they are tying up and plan not to spend, like what they did last year.

 

When the cap credit happened, all of the Lions fans at FBG's were talking about how much foresight the Lions had, because they would be able to spend more money than most teams while the CBA was up in the air. Problem with that theory is, they have never spent their money and this year is no different.

 

 

and the bears did what with their wad of cash again--a wad of cash more than the lions had? as i've already mentioned, the lions signed 16 free agents.

 

you can't take the argument the lions "botched" the qb position in free agency and not make a bigger case for the bears focking it up--especially if you take walter's argument the bears only needed tweaking (i.e. one or two key signings) to put them over the top.

 

silly bear homers make me laugh

 

If it's a "bad signing" then the player is consdiered a bust. You've said virtually the same thing by yapping about how much he's going to make and that he won't be worth it.

 

If a player's value on the field does not live up to the money he signed for, that's the definition of a bust.

 

okay, then: the bears spent $7.5 mill this year on a guy who beats up patrons at denny's.

 

b-u-s-t (if not just on principle alone).

 

Grossman is "confident" this year.

 

the kiss of death. wave buh-bye to grossman

[Walter34 3]

where's the data to support that statement? nowhere. it doesn't exist. not even going to take the bait on that stupidity.

and the bears did what with their wad of cash again--a wad of cash more than the lions had? as i've already mentioned, the lions signed 16 free agents.

 

you can't take the argument the lions "botched" the qb position in free agency and not make a bigger case for the bears focking it up--especially if you take walter's argument the bears only needed tweaking (i.e. one or two key signings) to put them over the top.

 

silly bear homers make me laugh

okay, then: the bears spent $7.5 mill this year on a guy who beats up patrons at denny's.

 

b-u-s-t.

 

What data - its an educated opinion.

 

Lions - journeyman qb over 30 who's been on the bench for over 2 years and a young qb that couldnt beat out Kurt Warner last year

Pack - Favre retires? and a virtual rookie

Vikes - Old man Johnson - decent, but long in the tooth and a Lions qb reject

Bears - former 1st round pick that hasnt been healthy, sophomore that won 10 games as a starter and a 31 yr old vet backup that has been very productive in both Denver and TB.

 

 

Also, signing 16 peices of crap is not productive - its just recycling crap.

[DrJ 0]

where's the data to support that statement? nowhere. it doesn't exist. not even going to take the bait on that stupidity.

and the bears did what with their wad of cash again--a wad of cash more than the lions had? as i've already mentioned, the lions signed 16 free agents.

 

you can't take the argument the lions "botched" the qb position in free agency and not make a bigger case for the bears focking it up--especially if you take walter's argument the bears only needed tweaking (i.e. one or two key signings) to put them over the top.

 

silly bear homers make me laugh

 

They signed a nickel CB to address an area of need. They signed a veteran QB that was as good as anyone the Lions got, despite having a much better QB situation than the Lions had. They're attempting to get Lance Briggs resigned to a long term deal. They're actually using their money.

 

The Lions signed 16 crappy free agents, half of which probably won't even make the roster, about 2 are worth mentioning.

 

I agree that the Bears overpaid for Manning, but you can't criticize them for not spending any money and criticize them for spending money at the same time. Oh wait, I'm talking to welchdog here, I guess you can.

 

And again, Grossman is looking no worse than Harrington did last year at this time. And you were all over his nuts. Unlike you were with Harrington, us Bears fans are realistic. Grossman may not light the world on fire, like you predicted Harrington would, but QB isn't the #1 position on this team and he's good enough to do what we need him to do. All we needed was a solid veteran in case he goes down again.

 

The Lions on the other hand needed an entire set of QB's. They need half a new team, actually. And instead of spending money like the Bears did with Manning, they're sitting doing absolutely nothing. But I'm sure they'll award some bonuses that they won't pay and you'll keep talking about how the Fords aren't cheap.

[swamp dog 0]

They signed a nickel CB to address an area of need. They signed a veteran QB that was as good as anyone the Lions had, despite having a much better QB situation than the Lions had. They're attempting to get Lance Briggs resigned to a long term deal. They're actually using their money.

 

The Lions signed 16 crappy free agents, half of which probably won't even make the roster, about 2 are worth mentioning.

 

I agree that the Bears overpaid for Manning, but you can't criticize them for not spending any money and criticize them for spending money at the same time. Oh wait, I'm talking to welchdog here, I guess you can.

 

And again, Grossman is looking no worse than Harrington did last year at this time. And you were all over his nuts. Unlike you were with Harrington, us Bears fans are realistic. Grossman may not light the world on fire, like you predicted Harrington would, but QB isn't the #1 position on this team and he's good enough to do what we need him to do. All we needed was a solid veteran in case he goes down again.

 

The Lions on the other hand needed an entire set of QB's. They need half a new team, actually. And instead of spending money like the Bears did with Manning, they're sitting doing absolutely nothing. But I'm sure they'll award some bonuses that they won't pay and you'll keep talking about how the Fords aren't cheap.

 

saying the bears have a better qb situation than the lions is absurdley homeristic. not worth responding with anything more than that. you bear fans are showing your silly colors in this thread.

[Sweetness_34 0]

The Bears have the #1 defense in the league, with all starters returning, and it only getting better with a draft very strong at DB and LB (both of those positions Bears will take someone somewhere in the draft).

 

The Lydowns have a piece of crap at defense.....

 

Hence the Bears can win if they have Grossman or Griese instead of Orton. Also add to that the fact that Bradley, Currie and Benson should be back healthy, and they add a TE in a TE rich draft, their O will be considerably improved from last year. So, while the Bears QB position may not be top 10 in the league, it does not have to be for them to contend. Now it is difficult to win it all without solid QB play. So if Rex or Brian do not perform solidly (aka perform like a Brad Johnson in their SB winning year), they can win with the defense we have.

 

The Lydowns have a piece of crap at offense.....

 

You may return to sucking on Suckington, welchdog. Or isn't it time for you to cry and run away from the bored, pretending you have more important things to do with your and Suckington's kid?

[swamp dog 0]

swamp poopie aka dipshiat

 

The Bears have the #1 defense in the league, with all starters returning, and it only getting better with a draft very strong at DB and LB (both of those positions Bears will take someone somewhere in the draft).

 

The Lydowns have a piece of crap at defense.....

 

Hence the Bears can win if they have Grossman or Griese instead of Orton. Also add to that the fact that Bradley, Currie and Benson should be back healthy, and they add a TE in a TE rich draft, their O will be considerably improved from last year. So, while the Bears QB position may not be top 10 in the league, it does not have to be for them to contend. Now it is difficult to win it all without solid QB play. So if Rex or Brian do not perform solidly (aka perform like a Brad Johnson in their SB winning year), they can win with the defense we have.

 

The Lydowns have a piece of crap at offense.....

 

You may return to sucking on Suckington, welchdog. Or isn't it time for you to cry and run away from the bored, pretending you have more important things to do with your and Suckington's kid?

 

 

the conversation is about the qb position. thanks for not playing.

[DrJ 0]

saying the bears have a better qb situation than the lions is absurdley homeristic. not worth responding with anything more than that. you bear fans are showing your silly colors in this thread.

 

Yeah, because there isn't a single person outside of Bears fans that would agree that having Grossman and Orton is better than having Dan Orlovsky with all 17 career passes of his.

 

I'd say it's you that's showing your true colors here. When you can't debate the facts, just call someone a homer and run away. Textbook welchdog there.

 

The other thing that's amusing here is how welchdog couldn't possible see how the QB position is more important to Detroit than it is to Chicago.

 

You guys are an offensive team! You've drafted 3 WR's in the first round in a row and have spent your last 7 consecutive 1st rounders on the offensive side of the ball. You have Martz, you'd think they'd want someone capable of throwing the ball.

 

Chicago meanwhile is a defensive oriented team whose success doesn't depend nearly as much on the QB position. And of course they were better at the position to start with. But it is they that should have spent big money on QB and not the offensive team with no QB. Of course...

[swamp dog 0]

Yeah, because there isn't a single person outside of Bears fans that would agree that having Grossman and Orton is better than having Dan Orlovsky with all 17 career passes of his.

 

I'd say it's you that's showing your true colors here. When you can't debate the facts, just call someone a homer and run away. Textbook welchdog there.

 

The other thing that's amusing here is how welchdog couldn't possible see how the QB position is more important to Detroit than it is to Chicago.

 

You guys are an offensive team! You've drafted 3 WR's in the first round in a row and have spent your last 7 consecutive 1st rounders on the offensive side of the ball. You have Martz, you'd think they'd want someone capable of throwing the ball.

 

Chicago meanwhile is a defensive oriented team whose success doesn't depend nearly as much on the QB position. And of course they were better at the position to start with. But it is they that should have spent big money on QB and not the offensive team with no QB. Of course...

 

the lions have kitna, mccown, and orlovsky. we were debating the overall position of the lions qb spot versus the bears qb spot.

[SmartassBoiler 0]

Hey fellow Bears fans, let's just ignore swamp dog from here on out.

 

His whole point on this board is to trash us because it makes him feel better about his own problems. He doesn't provide intelligence or insightfulness to any Bear thread...he just tries to bring it down to illogical discussion because that's the only type of conversation he can maintain.

[DrJ 0]

the lions have kitna, mccown, and orlovsky. we were debating the overall position of the lions qb spot versus the bears qb spot.

 

Once again, welch doesn't like the direction the conversation is heading so he tries to change it.

 

We were talking about signing Brees, and I used the state of the Lions QB's and Bears QB's heading into free agency as evidence that it was a more significant need for the Lions.

 

And if the fact that the Lions had Orlovsky only wasn't enough, it's also worth noting that the Lions are an offensive team (or at least should be if you look at their drafts), and need a QB more than the Bears do to take advantage of the talent they've wasted draft pick after draft pick on.

 

Hey fellow Bears fans, let's just ignore swamp dog from here on out.

 

His whole point on this board is to trash us because it makes him feel better about his own problems. He doesn't provide intelligence or insightfulness to any Bear thread...he just tries to bring it down to illogical discussion because that's the only type of conversation he can maintain.

 

Nah, it's more fun to set him up for the train wreck that's bound to happen. We'll have a season worth of bump material very soon, probably about 2 by the time the draft is over. And by week 8 he'll be whining about how bitter everyone is, and will follow it up with his annual disappearing act.

[swamp dog 0]

Hey fellow Bears fans, let's just ignore swamp dog from here on out.

 

His whole point on this board is to trash us because it makes him feel better about his own problems. He doesn't provide intelligence or insightfulness to any Bear thread...he just tries to bring it down to illogical discussion because that's the only type of conversation he can maintain.

 

1) i've predicted the bears will win the nfcn this year

2) i've avoided personal attacks: i give my opinion about football matters here, and ask for refutation. you are also entitled to your opinions.

 

pretty simple.

 

Once again, welch doesn't like the direction the conversation is heading so he tries to change it.

 

We were talking about signing Brees, and I used the state of the Lions QB's and Bears QB's heading into free agency as evidence that it was a more significant need for the Lions.

 

And if the fact that the Lions had Orlovsky only wasn't enough, it's also worth noting that the Lions are an offensive team (or at least should be if you look at their drafts), and need a QB more than the Bears do to take advantage of the talent they've wasted draft pick after draft pick on.

Nah, it's more fun to set him up for the train wreck that's bound to happen. We'll have a season worth of bump material very soon, probably about 2 by the time the draft is over. And by week 8 he'll be whining about how bitter everyone is, and will follow it up with his annual disappearing act.

 

 

so the bears, coming off a year where there qbs had a collective rating of 59--and with a starter with a career total of 4 tds and 3 major season-ending injuries--didn't have a need for a brees? really? now that is indeed an *interesting* assessment. but, as i point out above, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

cheers.

[DrJ 0]

so the bears, coming off a year where there qbs had a collective rating of 59--and with a starter with a career total of 4 tds and 3 major season-ending injuries--didn't have a need for a brees? really? now that is indeed an *interesting* assessment. but, as i point out above, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

cheers.

 

Well hey, since you think the Bears needed Brees, you can surely admit that the Lions did as well. And since the Lions didn't sign him, they focked up. I'm glad you agree that the Lions screwed up free agency.

 

using my best welchdog logic here

[swamp dog 0]

Well hey, since you think the Bears needed Brees, you can surely admit that the Lions did as well. And since the Lions didn't sign him, they focked up. I'm glad you agree that the Lions screwed up free agency.

 

using my best welchdog logic here

 

it wasn't wise for ANY team to throw tens of millions of dollars at qb coming of a major shoulder injury. so you actually think that is sound policy? i'm not the one that's been on brees schlong this entire thread, you have. he's your boy-toy, not mine. as such, you must surely be disappointed the bears didn't sign him--especially given the wad of cash the bears had.

 

me? i don't trust his shoulder and thus i don't trust his long-term prospects. the lions signed two competent qbs for a total fraction of what one brees with an iffy arm cost. but, again, you love brees so i have to assume you're bitterly disappointed he's not a bear.

[DrJ 0]

it wasn't wise for ANY team to throw tens of millions of dollars at qb coming of a major shoulder injury. so you actually think that is sound policy? i'm not the one that's been on brees schlong this entire thread, you have. he's your boy-toy, not mine. as such, you must surely be disappointed the bears didn't sign him--especially given the wad of cash the bears had.

 

me? i don't trust his shoulder and thus i don't trust his long-term prospects. the lions signed two competent qbs for a total fraction of what one brees with an iffy arm cost. but, again, you love brees so i have to assume you're bitterly disappointed he's not a bear.

 

Okay, so you never believed at any point that the Bears should have signed Brees. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if you just discussed the argument on it's merits rather than you're usual "well, the Bears screwed up because they didn't do it!" garbage, which you never actually believed all along.

 

I guess it's because you find it impossible to discuss anything rationally unless you're cornered into doing so.

 

cheers, bitter welchdog!

[swamp dog 0]

Okay, so you never believed at any point that the Bears should have signed Brees. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if you just discussed the argument on it's merits rather than you're usual "well, the Bears screwed up because they didn't do it!" garbage, which you never actually believed all along.

 

I guess it's because you find it impossible to discuss anything rationally unless you're cornered into doing so.

 

cheers, bitter welchdog!

 

1) you love brees

2) the bears have/had a ton of cap space

3) the bears qbs blow

4) the bears should have signed brees, if, by your admission, brees is such a great qb.

 

the end

[Raider 84 29]

I'm glad these players can keep a nice image for the NFL. Another idiot!