selection7

I mostly agree with Balta and bears4ever. Good plays and bad plays are going to happen throughout the game. But when you choke at the very end, leaving your team no time to recover or adjust to the newly dire situation, in what amounts to a purely mental error (the fumble too...not holding onto the ball in that situation when we didn't even need [being the operative word] more yards is a mental error) is not the same as "just a bad play". Players who are capable of that will find a way to lose, one way or the other. It's not acceptable at this high a level of competition. The reason I say "mostly" is because I want to add people to the 'kick 'em off the team' list. I'm not trying to be kind to Barber. The Bear who missed an easy tackle (who knows what was going through his head..."get a big hit...don't let him drag you for yards", I have no idea) to let Denver get out of bounds, the DC who failed to realise after an entire drive of his Dline failing to get anywhere near Tebow that a change of strategy was in order, the blown coverage on the medium out (who also got out of bounds and picked up big yardage), the head coach who didn't mentally prepare his team for such a scenario when this is the only way the Broncos ever win. Inexcusable mental mistakes.

Are we fools? Are we losers? I'm not sure if I've ever been so ashamed of my Bears. Before this game I thought to myself that whether we win or not, we won't be one of those knucklehead teams that shoots themselves in the foot with mere minutes remaining, allowing Tebow to get credit for his "leadership" willing the team to a win. Pure and simple, those teams were choking, time after time, and Tebow had little to do with it (especially since he's sitting on the sideline for most of these game changing plays). Well, the Bears added themselves to that list, and did it while all but knocking themselves out of the playoffs. It's dissapointing, but much moreso, it's embarrassing. Every game, someone has to lose. So I'm not the type to get too down on guys who are having trouble getting wins...but what we saw last Sunday was the definition of what the hecklers call a "loser". I'd rather go 3-13 and be able to say we played with pride, intelligence, and a love of the game. What do the McCaskey's have to do to ensure that "losers" aren't allowed safe haven in Chicago? This is the question they need to be asking.

I like Roy, but you either step up or you don't. Right now he's clearly in the latter category. For those that wanted us to pick up Kyle, how about the irony that we could've really used him today...yet so could have our opponent, who actually did have him on their roster...but he wasn't a factor for them anyway due to a freak injury. Ha.

My problem with Hanie is not finding open receivers and innaccuracy. All that stuff about being pressured all day and his picks I take only for what it's worth.

FWIW, I don't think Bennett was sprinting for that ball until it was too late. Probably, he eased up when he realised how wide open he was, but that throws the QB's accuracy off. Also, the network never did a good job of showing where Barber was on the line of scrimmage. Was he really off it? He looked on the line to me. This is why the Bears were playing the wait game. 4 games ago Forte's value was never greater. Like the stock market, the goal is not to buy high (and sell low). So then the deal becomes...if Forte can make it through the whole season without injury and keep up his dynamite stats, we'll have to pay bigger bucks to keep him than we'd like too. But it'll be alright because we'll have gotten an incredible season out of him. However, if he gets injured or can't keep up those gaudy stats (in real life, both happened), he'll have to sign for less. Either way the Bears win in a sense. IMO, players think they get to negotiate like they're a free agent when they're not (yet). You want peace of mind now, not later? It'll cost 'ya.

It's funny, there is so much to talk about after this game. It was a doozy. Yet hardly any activity (so far) on these boards. I think most of us are feeling a little sick.

Hanie (or our recievers not getting open) was the cause of some of those pressures/sacks. It's great to able drop back and feel no hurry, but in the NFL the M.O. is supposed to be 5-steps-back, pause, then throw. Not 5-steps back, pause, then take off when you don't find an open reciever and you end up getting sacked. Hanie was bigtime pressured though, don't get me wrong. I'm not taking sides on the WR vs. OL debate. I just want the QB/WRs held responsible for the part they played too.

Da Bears left Da Points on Da Field. Say goodbye to Da Playoffs.

IMO, the key is how tough a read...combined with how high the risk..that play was. Jim Miller didn't seem to think it was a tough read. I don't really know. Also IMO, 2nd and 1 is a great throw down if you find the right play (for example, I like it when the RBs land inches short of a first down on a first down run...rather than getting one more yard). If you don't get it, you get another try, and even if you fail then, you still get a FG opportunity. Though Marion was playing well while Hanie was struggling, so yeah, sometimes it's best not to get too cute. And obviously Curry was ready for the play, so Martz failed to pick a play that would surprise them. At the time, I felt like Hanie got rattled and made a hasty decision to force the pass.

Like I said before the game, Hanie's main goal should be to maintain self-control and to not turn the ball over. From there, all we need from him is 1 TD & 1 FG and we beat most of these bad teams (to clarify, I'm counting on turnovers and special teams leading to another 7-10 ppg). You wonder how these QBs who are in over their head can not know that, but you know, we've been there before with Rex Grossman, so I'm used to it.

I enjoyed the game. Very dramatic. We lost, but our play wasn't pull-your-hair-out annoyingly bad or anything. I didn't think I'd be saying this, but IMO, if Atlanta wins next week against the 8-3 Texans, they make the playoffs. Atlanta will then have won 6 out of their last 7...and the texans are now on their 3rd string QB now that Leinart got hurt (he was having a great game too...10/13, 1TD, 0INT.) After that, the only team Atlanta plays with a winning record is New Orleans.

Not in my opinion. Just my opinion though. And I'm a grown man also. If only that meant every decsion I made was the right one for me. Also, Kyle's found out the hard way that not doing anything to warrant a bad rep unfortunately doesn't always matter much in the end. The great thing about free agency is that you get to take more control of your destiny and I encourage Kyle to do it.

I've continued to follow Kyle, so it would've been interesting to have him here, sure. But it's better for him that he not be here. Once gossip turns nasty, it's hard not to be stuck with a reputation, and that's the case here in Chicago. Kyle needs a fresh start. As for us, Hanie would've started anyway for at least a game or two, so Kyle would've only have played 3 or 4 games (assuming Lovie's timetable for Jay). If this was Madden Football, it would absolutely make sense, but real life is more complicated.

It's just my philosophy that people tend to underestimate how hard it is to play QB well. Even though they say things like "hardest position in sports", they don't keep that in mind when they evaluate QBs. My philosophy on developing a QB is "throw them in the fire, then coddle them, rinse and repeat...back and forth". In practice, it's tough to implement that. But you bring up a good point I hadn't thought of. Maybe I'm too conservative, but I'll put my thoughts on it like this. No offseason, no bye week even...I wouldn't be surprised if Tom Brady came here and struggled with our offense over the next month or so (heck, every rare now and then, he struggles with the Pats). By then it's too late.

This is a real odd situation. Usually if you have to rely on your backup QB for more than an odd appearance, it's over anyway. But with the wins we've built up, teams we play with losing records, and talent on D and special teams, the backup QB really can make a big difference if he can play capably (I'm referring to playoffs obviously). My philosophy is to go with the guys you've got...unless you feel really bad about them, and in that case it begs the question why you didn't do something about it before an emergency came up.

Guess I'm still not done . After more thought, here's my theory. Kyle is a confident dude (if I'm right, too confident) who thinks that he'll be able to reassert himself as a prime aquisition for some team in need of QB this offseason and he feels the Bears organization would be a great fit because our offense is capable (hey, he believes in us at least!) and he'd get comfortable quicker since he already knows the Bears' organization. IMO, it's foolish to assume you can come in here without knowing the system and perform in a way that puts you back in position to demand big bucks. I'm not even sure he'd outperform Hanie, but Hanie is still kind of an unknown to me so I'm hopeful. Of course if Hanie sucks next Sunday, that changes things quick.

Some compelling points to consider, none of which prove anything by themselves, but I think taken as a whole you can get a better idea of what position Orton and his agent really think he's in: --During preseason I read an NFL pundit who said KO statistically is ranked in the upper echelon of the league's passers over the last couple of years. --Even before he left here, he was the best QB we'd had since Erik Kramer in the 90's. He had a slow start this year, but remember Denver changed head coaches in the offseason. And he hardly played terrible. Going into the game where he got yanked at halftime, he had an 81 QB rating. Cutler's rating was lower at the time for crying out loud. In fact, in that actual game (game 5), he was 6/13 with one 'hit as he threw it' pick at halftime before he got yanked. But Denver's D had allowed 24 points at halftime (Denver's D--minus the Detroit game--has played far, far better since Tebow became starter for some reason) so the mood was low. Tebow was put in to maybe be a spark. 99 times out of a 100 you don't bench a QB like that, but then 99 times out of 100 Tebow Mania isn't a factor. --In the two years since we traded QBs with Denver, Orton has outperfomred Jay in most of the ways that you measure individual success for a QB. Even with respect to the beloved long ball, which people were hyping Jay over when we first got him (and I was urging hopeful realism), Kyle completed a higher percentage of passes in every category: 21-30yds, 31-40yds, & 40+yds...both years. You might think "well, I bet Jay completed a greater quantity at least". Nope. Save for 31-40yds in '09. See for yourself. http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits/_/id/...2010/kyle-orton BTW, as my post history surely shows, I like Jay. I only use him as a comparative example we can all identify with. --Anyone remember when we traded Kyle people talking about how he'd improved his QB rating every year he'd played so far...well, after two years in Denver, that's still true, which means no one truly knows his ceiling yet. And he just turned 29 last week. So you can see why this is not a guy who's going to consider warming the bench for some QB he's maybe never heard of. If you think it seems hard to believe he was benched for a guy who wins games by going 2 for 8 for 60 yards passing and 60 yards rushing, I guarantee you he (and his receivers--they're reported not to be happy campers over Denver's new 55 rushes in a game offense) feels the same way.

Fascinating that Orton would want to come here. He must know there's no chance of keeping the starting job. Kyle should be wanting to get to a new team like KC as soon as possible so that when next season starts he's already broken-in with the new system. For those of you who are talking about him backing up Hanie, that's totally unrealistic. You've maybe only been reading headlines from his time in Denver, but keep in mind the situation there in Denver is 'special' to say the least.

Peanut's still having a great year. Calling him a #2 is not realistic. We've had a great D for years and he's been our best corner for so long I forget who came before. When you add up his picks and forced fumbles, it's a really impressive stat...too bad I forgot it exactly, but only about 3 or 4 other players have more combined over the last half decade or so and I remember thinking the ones ahead of him are all going to the HoF. I do agree that he is what he is though.

Yikes. Who's out backup? I was impressed that Clutts was ready and available. If you're clawing and scratching to make in on an NFL roster, you need to be ready for any opportunity and he was. But I wonder if we won't sign a real longsnapper now that Mannely is surely going on IR.

Hanie just needs to manage the offense, as a previous post put it. No turnovers. Special teams and turnovers forced by our D will put our O in position to score maybe 10 ppg without doing anything, from there if Hanie and co. can manage 3 field goals or 1 TD and 1 field goal per game, we'll win 3 out of the next six. As long as we limit turnovers. That's not asking much. Hanie is capable, especially if Martz designs and calls his offense smartly for him. We need a John Shoop offense about now.

How would he be risking his career? It's not a tendon or a ligament. It's not his neck. He didn't shred a muscle. The thumb isn't weight bearing. If you're going to have an injury that you can't play on, a broken bone is pretty much what you want, right? In whatever manner that thumb sets they can just always surgically rebreak it later and set it right. Another way to put it is...ever heard of someone's career ending because of a broken bone that wasn't in their spine?

Wow, things just got real interesting. At 7-3 with one of the NFL's easier schedules from here on out, it looked like we had a very strong chance at playoffs (almost assured). Now we'll need to fight for our lives for every win. We've got the Chiefs, the Broncos, the Seahawks, and the Vikes left...all are very beatable (plus Oakland and GB). Surely we can get 3 wins. 10 gets you in more times than not. EDIT: ...did some checking. The way the NFC has turned out this year, there are only 4 teams with any real chance of a wildcard (that is, only 4 teams that aren't winning their division have a record of better than 4-6): Lions, Bears, Falcons, & Dallas/Giants (whichever one doesn't win the division, so they only count as 1 team). We've got a 2 game tiebreaker lead over Atlanta, so I'm not worried about them. IMO, we're just battling to not barely miss the playoffs because of Detroit and Dallas/Giants . If we can beat out either one of them, we're in. EDIT2: After seeing a similar post on the official forums, I want to add that Dallas and the Giants play each other twice from here on out. If they don't split the series, that guarantees two losses for whichever team doesn't win that division. Also, Detroit has a very difficult schedule: Chargers, GB, GB again, Saints, and Oakland (they also play Minny). We got really lucky this year in terms of competition for a wildcard spot.

Some of my point of view comes from my philosophy that pushing a first year guy too hard takes away certain avenues for learning and replaces them purely with game after game of experience. It can work out in some cases, but not in others. If you're paying first round money, it makes sense to do things the right way, not the desperate way. So considering that I feel that way, of course I'm not going to buy that the goal of all first round picks is starting the first year. In many cases you may already have decent talent at their position, so pushing a veteran out makes even less sense. I'm not trying to go all Buddy Ryan on you though. I like to see rookies contribute.

Have we ever played Phillip Rivers Chargers? I'm very interested in this one. I saw on ESPNs "Number Never Lie" that the Bears had something like the 6th or 9th (I forgot) hardest schedule up to this point but we've got only the 26th hardest schedule from here on out...and we've got a 6-3 record. The tv pundit said he thought we'd finish 12-4 and still be a wildcard team. I can't help but think about how much satisfaction would there be in doing to GB this year what they did to us last year. Don't want to put the cart before the horse though.