Looking around the NFL, I wonder really who comes close to the Bears in QB depth. I suppose it would be there division rival Detroit, but the real reason for this post is that I am really impressed with the QB's on this team....all of them. I have always been big fan of Brian Griese, and in college I was so impressed with Kyle Orton's accuracy and winning leadership. Now, I am impressed with what I have read about Grossman's return and his past NFL and college history. This has to be a tough decision for the head coach to make, personally, I think I would go with Griese, but they are all good.....and I am first and foremost a Dallas Cowboys fan.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (royalstarblue)</div><div class='quotemain'>Looking around the NFL, I wonder really who comes close to the Bears in QB depth. I suppose it would be there division rival Detroit, but the real reason for this post is that I am really impressed with the QB's on this team....all of them. I have always been big fan of Brian Griese, and in college I was so impressed with Kyle Orton's accuracy and winning leadership. Now, I am impressed with what I have read about Grossman's return and his past NFL and college history. This has to be a tough decision for the head coach to make, personally, I think I would go with Griese, but they are all good.....and I am first and foremost a Dallas Cowboys fan.</div> On paper they might look good but grossman hasnt started more than 4 games without getting hurt, and brian griese is comming of knee surgery, so i dont think they have good depth. If you look at the Falcons they have Vick and Schaub both QBs who have shown they could start in the NFL, Dolphins have Culpepper and Harrington, Rams have Bulger Feroutte and Fitzpatrick, the packers have Farve and Rodgers, Ravens have McNair and Boller(who i would rather have than grossman), Jags have Byron Leftwitch and Garrard, Titans have Vince Young and Volek, Cards have Kurt Warner and Matt Leinhart, Broncos have Plummer and Cutler. That is nine teams that have better depth than the bears at QB. A lot of QB can win when he only has to lead their offense to 14 points. Schaub threw 3 TDS in a loss to the pats, if the bears had schaub they would have been undefeated.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Titans have Vince Young and Volek</div> It looks like Kerry Collins is going to join the Titans as well. If he signs, I think that gives the Titans the most depth. Or at least improves their depth...
ehhh Bears and best and QB in the same sentence never makes sense. Griese is a great backup. Grossman is probably on a make or break year. Orton was lucky to have what he had last year. A Bad divsion, A good running game, A good offensive line, and the best defense in the game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (panthersare#1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (royalstarblue)</div><div class='quotemain'>Looking around the NFL, I wonder really who comes close to the Bears in QB depth. I suppose it would be there division rival Detroit, but the real reason for this post is that I am really impressed with the QB's on this team....all of them. I have always been big fan of Brian Griese, and in college I was so impressed with Kyle Orton's accuracy and winning leadership. Now, I am impressed with what I have read about Grossman's return and his past NFL and college history. This has to be a tough decision for the head coach to make, personally, I think I would go with Griese, but they are all good.....and I am first and foremost a Dallas Cowboys fan.</div> On paper they might look good but grossman hasnt started more than 4 games without getting hurt, and brian griese is comming of knee surgery, so i dont think they have good depth. If you look at the Falcons they have Vick and Schaub both QBs who have shown they could start in the NFL, Dolphins have Culpepper and Harrington, Rams have Bulger Feroutte and Fitzpatrick, the packers have Farve and Rodgers, Ravens have McNair and Boller(who i would rather have than grossman), Jags have Byron Leftwitch and Garrard, Titans have Vince Young and Volek, Cards have Kurt Warner and Matt Leinhart, Broncos have Plummer and Cutler. That is nine teams that have better depth than the bears at QB. A lot of QB can win when he only has to lead their offense to 14 points. Schaub threw 3 TDS in a loss to the pats, if the bears had schaub they would have been undefeated.</div> Let me refute and dispute. 1) Vick, worse than griese and grossman. Schaub may be better, but as unproven as grossman 2) Dolphins, definately better potential. neither have come close to pep as starter, and harrington has so great skills wasted in detroit 3) Bulger has a qb rating equal to griese. but has won much less. ferotte doesnt have talent to start, grossman does. who is fitzpatrick? One good game? orton won 10 games. 4) Packers - Farve is washed up (look at the INTs) rodgers has yet to take the field 5) Leftwich and garrard are nice combo. probably equal except garrard isnt a starter in this league, he only beat really bad teams 6) Mcnair and boller are equal tandem 7) Volek has had some good games, but rating doesnt bear him out to griese, and young is nothing, scrub a dub dub. underclassmen QB in NFL = BUST 8) Warner is shell of his former self, and talk to me when leinart signs ( missing camp as rook, good luck being as good) 9) Plummer is hands down better. Cutler, yet to play, no way.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CanadianFavreFan)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'd take one great QB over 3 better then average ones any day</div> Ok, agreed. That really doesnt give you the best depth.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CanadianFavreFan)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'd take one great QB over 3 better then average ones any day</div> Ok, agreed. That really doesnt give you the best depth.</div> Well when your starting QB has started your last 241 games, I wouldn't be too worried about his backups.
i wonder if orton is better drunk or sober...because honestly his play could be described as either one...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Packersfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CanadianFavreFan)</div><div class='quotemain'>I'd take one great QB over 3 better then average ones any day</div> Ok, agreed. That really doesnt give you the best depth.</div> Well when your starting QB has started your last 241 games, I wouldn't be too worried about his backups.</div> Yeah, that happens a lot. Every team should just assume 241 starts without injury, even the packers should assume that for rodgers. If you want to make stupid points, that have nothing to do with thread, logic, common sense, then go ahead, but i will no longer respond.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Packersfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'> Ok, agreed. That really doesnt give you the best depth.</div> Well when your starting QB has started your last 241 games, I wouldn't be too worried about his backups.</div> Yeah, that happens a lot. Every team should just assume 241 starts without injury, even the packers should assume that for rodgers. If you want to make stupid points, that have nothing to do with thread, logic, common sense, then go ahead, but i will no longer respond.</div> Well.... Apparently you didn't realize that both me and CanadianFavreFan were referring to Favre and the Packers....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Packersfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Packersfan)</div><div class='quotemain'> Well when your starting QB has started your last 241 games, I wouldn't be too worried about his backups.</div> Yeah, that happens a lot. Every team should just assume 241 starts without injury, even the packers should assume that for rodgers. If you want to make stupid points, that have nothing to do with thread, logic, common sense, then go ahead, but i will no longer respond.</div> Well.... Apparently you didn't realize that both me and CanadianFavreFan were referring to Favre and the Packers....</div> I think he realized that you were talking about Favre, but it's still an absurd notion to think that any QB, even Favre, isn't at risk for injury. You do realize that Favre is getting older every year, right?
What I'm saying is it isn't likely that Favre won't start every game this season, let alone that he gets injured and then Rodgers gets injured. So no, I don't think we have to worry too much about who our 3rd string QB is.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Packersfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>What I'm saying is it isn't likely that Favre won't start every game this season, let alone that he gets injured and then Rodgers gets injured. So no, I don't think we have to worry too much about who our 3rd string QB is.</div> Only thing missing point more than you is a bowling ball.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Packersfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>What I'm saying is it isn't likely that Favre won't start every game this season, let alone that he gets injured and then Rodgers gets injured. So no, I don't think we have to worry too much about who our 3rd string QB is.</div> Only thing missing point more than you is a bowling ball.</div> ....well you see when you talk about depth at a position, you look at who you have to back up the starter. I said you don't have to worry to much about the back up when you have a player who hasn't missed a game in 15 seasons. I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption. You take a car on the same trip 15 times and it doesn't have a single problem, you can reasonably assume it will make it the 16th time.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Packersfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Packersfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>What I'm saying is it isn't likely that Favre won't start every game this season, let alone that he gets injured and then Rodgers gets injured. So no, I don't think we have to worry too much about who our 3rd string QB is.</div> Only thing missing point more than you is a bowling ball.</div> ....well you see when you talk about depth at a position, you look at who you have to back up the starter. I said you don't have to worry to much about the back up when you have a player who hasn't missed a game in 15 seasons. I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption. You take a car on the same trip 15 times and it doesn't have a single problem, you can reasonably assume it will make it the 16th time.</div> Injuries can happen anytime anywhere. Is Favre tough. You damn right he is. Coming in and throwing a TD with a concussion, takes balls BUT Favre had a great line for 10 years of his career and a running game for the last 5. He doesn't have that currently and that makes him more vunreable to injury. In my opinion every team needs at least 1 good backup. We have Aaron Rodgers who is unprove but is a 1st round pick. So with that investment having him at are #2 is a smart move all the way. Brian Griese and Kyle Orton are better backups than Aaron Rodges and Ingle Martin though. I'll give the Bears that.
The one advantage the Bears have is probably depth at QB helps them more then most teams. With their defense it allows them to try the next guy if one isn't getting it done. All they need is one of the 3 to get into a rythym at the right time and their smiling. A team with poor D depending on one guy is screwed when he's not playing his best. (ie, Favre last year)
