JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 11:15 PM) That's because everybody in the country pretty much took up your point of view - how the Bears were fortunate to face backup QBs. Well guess what, other playoff teams did too and some of them LOST. The Packers lost to Drew Stanton, the Bears didn't. The Eagles lost to Joe Webb, the Bears didn't. If you get the whole "oh look how many backups they faced" out of your head, you'll see that the Bears were one of the top 4 teams in the NFC this season and that they did have a chance to win yesterday. Hell, it took Green Bay a pick six, an injured Cutler, and one miracle trip of Brian Urlacher by Rodgers for them to pull that game out yesterday. And the Packers are the best team in the NFC. how do you know the game would have been closer if cutler wasn't injured for the second half? he showed nothing in the first half to say the bears would have even scored 14 points with him in there. don't even get started on injuries either. GB was missing nearly half of its opening day starters, how many were the bears missing? also, you say miracle trip by rodgers, i say uncharacteristic and awful pass by rodgers on 3rd down that cost them 3 points. it's all in the eyes of the beholder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 06:50 AM) how do you know the game would have been closer if cutler wasn't injured for the second half? he showed nothing in the first half to say the bears would have even scored 14 points with him in there. don't even get started on injuries either. GB was missing nearly half of its opening day starters, how many were the bears missing? also, you say miracle trip by rodgers, i say uncharacteristic and awful pass by rodgers on 3rd down that cost them 3 points. it's all in the eyes of the beholder... Lol how does making a bad pass equal to that of a miracle trip? The Bears did get a miracle interception though to end the first half, so Im not complaining or anything. I just feel the game was just bad for Bears fans to watch, the first 3 quarters were just plain hard to watch than they raise your hopes in 4th only to get crushed at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 06:53 AM) Lol how does making a bad pass equal to that of a miracle trip? The Bears did get a miracle interception though to end the first half, so Im not complaining or anything. I just feel the game was just bad for Bears fans to watch, the first 3 quarters were just plain hard to watch than they raise your hopes in 4th only to get crushed at the end. just saying the miracle trip never happens if the bad pass doesn't happen. how can you say the packers were fortunate for the rodgers tackle but bears not fortunate for the bad and uncharacteristic pass? i am tired of hearing these hypotheticals from some bears fans, there is no end to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 IMO, the Bears became a good team in a 2010 league of mediocrity, and while that success shined this year, in former years they wouldn't have looked so good. That aside because this didn't take place in former years, this year was a perfect storm for them, they blew it...and it's over. They will not see an opportunity like this presented to them again for a LONG time. The Packers have like 3000 people on IR, and they're STILL good (again, in the 2010 M.F.L. mediocre football league) The Lions will not be free wins (or as close to free wins as you can get) anymore for the NFCN. The Vikings will rebound. Their best chance with an severely aging team was THIS year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 05:33 PM) Honestly, I have defended him all year. And yes, I have watched all the games. In fact, I live out of town so I paid $300 to do so. I also was wearing a $300 Cutler jersey yesterday, so it isn't like I am someone who just dislikes him. I agree he has taken a beating this year, and he has done so admirably. As for his mopey face, I have watched enough Colts games this year to notice Peyton Manning usually wears a similar look on his face when things aren't going well. Maybe I am being too hard on the guy and asking him to succeed any more than he has in this situation is just too much to ask from him. Maybe no one could have answered the bell this season as well as he did. I guess we will never know. What I do know is that I wanted so badly for Jay to answer his critics yesterday. Trust me, when you walk around with that guy's jersey on in a town other than Chicago, you catch s*** for it. So it's not like I am not a supporter of him. Instead, what happened, is Jay played poorly in the biggest game of his life and then couldn't return to the game even though he could walk around the sidelines. Ultimately, that rubbed me the wrong way. I just wish he would give a crap about what people thought of him. I wish he would represent the organization in a better manner. I wish he would recognize he needs to be a leader, and that means doing things other than just on the field. But I guess he is who he is, and we aren't going to change that. We just have to accept it. That and the fact that I was kinda loaded by then made me write stuff that I have since taken back...I'm not a Cutler hater because I really really want our team to have a good QB for once.I couldn't care less if Jay is an asshole BTW, as long as he wins us games. Edited January 25, 2011 by MexSoxFan#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Well I can honestly say this Cutler fiasco has certainly made me less of a Bears fan and probably less of a sports fan overall. It was simply disgusting how people reacted to it and just put into perspective how way too seriously people take sports, likely because they are lacking things in their lives... truly and utterly classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 10:15 AM) Well I can honestly say this Cutler fiasco has certainly made me less of a Bears fan and probably less of a sports fan overall. It was simply disgusting how people reacted to it and just put into perspective how way too seriously people take sports, likely because they are lacking things in their lives... truly and utterly classless. Guess you're lucky you don't live in Philly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I want to add in a random fact. Type 1 diabetics are not allowed (only in a worse case situation would they) to take cortisone shots. A local radio show out here had a doctor on talking about it. Geeze, guy goes out and plays 3 series on a torn MCL (grade 2 sprain) without any pain killers. Thats a f***ing man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 07:46 PM) I'd like someone to correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the MCL and ACL both stabilize the knees on sideways movements. Walking straight forward and standing aren't bothered like sideways movements are. I know we had a guy in our softball league tear his ACL and MCL in a game who tried to keep playing. He could stand without pain, and walk without pain, but he went sideways at all, his knee literally collapsed. I haven't read every post so I don't know if it was answered. The ACL stabilizes the knee in rotation and anterior/posterior. The reason why the MCL and ACL (along with the medial meniscus, referred to as the terrible triad) are frequently injured together is that the knee has more rotation motion. When the knee buckles it doesn't just go in it rotates in as well. this is how all of them become in involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (JUSTgottaBELIEVE @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 06:50 AM) how do you know the game would have been closer if cutler wasn't injured for the second half? he showed nothing in the first half to say the bears would have even scored 14 points with him in there. don't even get started on injuries either. GB was missing nearly half of its opening day starters, how many were the bears missing? also, you say miracle trip by rodgers, i say uncharacteristic and awful pass by rodgers on 3rd down that cost them 3 points. it's all in the eyes of the beholder... Does it even matter how many players GB was missing? I said they're the best team in the NFC. What else do you want? And that interception by Urlacher should have gone for 6 points or at least gotten the Bears into FG range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 10:38 AM) I want to add in a random fact. Type 1 diabetics are not allowed (only in a worse case situation would they) to take cortisone shots. A local radio show out here had a doctor on talking about it. Geeze, guy goes out and plays 3 series on a torn MCL (grade 2 sprain) without any pain killers. Thats a f***ing man! A cortisone shot would not help this injury. The injections are for joint inflammation. This ligament is extra-articluar. It would not be effected by an injection regardless of his diabetes, which is accurrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (T R U @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 10:52 PM) cant we just all agree the Bears are who we thought they were and the only people who thought they were any good were Bears fans? not taking the bait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Link "I was mad at the players, to be honest with you," Barkley said Tuesday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000. "I think it was inappropriate and wrong to question a guy's heart. Now reporters, they're going to do what they want to. They're entitled to their opinion. But as players, I don't think it's appropriate to question another guy's heart. "That crosses the line, because you don't know. If you go back and start looking at all the stuff that's been said, and clearly one of the more vocal critics was Maurice Jones-Drew, and then you find out he missed the last two games with a bad knee. And he was really the first guy who crucified Jay. You have to be careful, because in the two most important games of the year, he sat out with a bad knee. And then it really makes him look like an idiot now." Jones-Drew subsequently said he was just joking and was taken out of context. "I just think it's inappropriate," Barkley said. "It's fair to criticize guys when they don't play well, but it's 100 percent unfair to criticize guys ... if a guy says he's hurt, you have to respect that." Barkley did have one criticism for Cutler, who was seen sitting next to third-stringer Caleb Hanie, who came in after second-stringer Todd Collins struggled. The Bears lost 21-14 to the Green Bay Packers. "I was very disappointed that he wasn't standing beside that young kid," Barkley said. "I was very disappointed he wasn't there trying to work with that young kid. There were a couple of shots of them on the sideline, with [Hanie] looking at pictures, and [Cutler] was just disengaged. That's a fair criticism." Barkley was told Hanie said Cutler was offering advice and support. "I don't think Caleb Hanie wanted to throw him under the bus," Barkley said. "If it had been me, I would have been in his ear the whole time. I would have been standing by him the whole time. Not just he said a couple of times he came and talked to him. "I've been in that situation before with a rookie or whatever. I'm going to be in his ear the whole time. That's a legitimate criticism of Jay Cutler." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) I don't care what Barkley says, all he saw was the Fox 5 second clips. Which, mind you, a producer picks and chooses which clips to show. Don't think that had any play in it? You're kidding yourself if you don't think so. Sideline reporters, who are there the entire time within feet of these guys, said there was plenty of help, plenty of enthusiasm, etc. It's a fact, and it's not debatable. Edited January 25, 2011 by IlliniKrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) It's a fact, and it's not debatable. No it's not, and yes it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) I don't care what Barkley says, all he saw was the Fox 5 second clips. Which, mind you, a producer picks and chooses which clips to show. Don't think that had any play in it? You're kidding yourself if you don't think so. Sideline reporters, who are there the entire time within feet of these guys, said there was plenty of help, plenty of enthusiasm, etc. It's a fact, and it's not debatable. I recognize and appreciate your desire and your right to stick up for the guy as much as possible. That's perfectly fair. But it's a fact and it's not debatable? These guys are all human. The sideline reporters work with Cutler and the Bears on a daily basis for half of the year. They have a professional relationship, and many times, a friendly relationship as well. I'm certainly not accusing anyone of lying for Jay Cutler, nor am I suggesting things were fabricated out of thin air, but to throw Cutler under the bus by claiming that he was not helping Hanie, or was being stubborn about the situation, well, that would take a lot of balls. I think for the most part, everyone in the organization, and many of the people close to the organization, including reporters, are going to be very hesitant to rock the boat here. I think it's very debatable. And I am certainly not saying they lied, or that they fabricated things...but there are a lot of things going on in this situation that would lead one to decide it was in his or her best interests to go with the organization's version of things and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) And I am certainly not saying they lied, or that they fabricated things...but there are a lot of things going on in this situation that would lead one to decide it was in his or her best interests to go with the organization's version of things and leave it at that. I'm not saying they lied...I'm saying that they probably lied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) I'm not saying they lied...I'm saying that they probably lied? This cherry picking habit of yours has become most annoying. I'm trying to be as diplomatic about this as possible because some people obviously have become extremely offended that anyone would dare call into question the Bears' version of things. So you ignore the entire point of the post and just seek out any little semantic argument you can make, even though you know darn well what I was trying to say in that post. Edited January 25, 2011 by iamshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 11:34 AM) This cherry picking habit of yours has become most annoying. Right now you are saying it is a giant cover-up by anyone on the sidelines who is reporting anything as well as by Bear coaches and players. I don't buy it. You can't keep that type of stuff quiet and there are reporters who would take that information and use it to make a name for themselves anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Well, you are just wrong. Laurence Holmes and Zach Zaidman (among others), neither of which called themselves a friend of Cutler (or really anyone a friend of Cutler) reported it. Who would you rather believe, TV producers with an agenda, or guys on the sidelines who not only see everything, but who's job it is to report facts? I know that's a rhetorical question, apparently. You are just trying to make s*** up to rip him at this point, saying everyone is just protecting him. You however have no proof of any of that. Now you are questioning the credibility of everyone in the local media, everyone in the organization, and doctors. OK then. Furthermore, if he didn't help whatsoever, in a make believe world, it has zero effect on the reason he came out of the game, which was due to INJURY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) I don't care what Barkley says, all he saw was the Fox 5 second clips. Which, mind you, a producer picks and chooses which clips to show. Don't think that had any play in it? You're kidding yourself if you don't think so. Sideline reporters, who are there the entire time within feet of these guys, said there was plenty of help, plenty of enthusiasm, etc. It's a fact, and it's not debatable. It says in the article that Barkley was at Soldier Field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:38 PM) It says in the article that Barkley was at Soldier Field. On the sideline reporting? Or seeing what everyone else on TV saw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:41 PM) On the sideline reporting? Or seeing what everyone else on TV saw? How could he not see more if he's there compared to those watching TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:41 PM) On the sideline reporting? Or seeing what everyone else on TV saw? Not trying to argue with you but he was not watching the game on tv, that's all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) How could he not see more if he's there compared to those watching TV? Really? So everyone at the game saw everything else that was going down on the sideline? Including HEARING things? Where was Barkley, a sky box? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts