I'd say the QB competition will be wide open during the start of the '07 Bears training camp between Grossman and Greise.
Besides, Garcia is making it very clear that he wants to stay in Philly. Ultimately, it won't be his choice if the Eagles don't wish to re sign him.
f**k it. Wouldn't be a bad idea for the Bears to call him.
I think Garcia's days as a starter are all but done. He turns 37 next month. But then again, Brad johnson started for the Vikings at age 38 this past season. Didn't do the team much good though.
so you think his play has dropped off that much in the past month?
i hope Chicago knows Rex lost the game for them. those two interceptions were as bad as i have seen.
A ham sandwich is a better choice than Grossman. Garcia could work for the short term if he'd be open to leaving the Eagles but the Bears need a long term solution. How's this year's draft looking for quarterbacks?
He's looked great in the past month. But as a team owner you really need to ask yourself is it worth investing in a guy at that age to compete as your starter? Maybe he'd do great as a one year starter for the Bears, who knows?
Grossman looked absolutely terrible. That under thrown ball that was picked off with his receiver several steps on the defender in the third quarter was laughable. He's a fringe starter at best. Better as a no. 2 QB. I think Griese will make a strong statement in training camp to start next year. Lovie Smith LOVES Rex for some reason.
The Ravens are a good example! :-\
This year's QB draft class is the best it's been in several years. Probably the strongest position in the upcoming draft next to wide receivers.
Now the question is will any of them be around at the end of the first round? I've heard about Quinn from Notre Dame and you know he's going early but who's going to be there at number 29 or whatever the Bears pick at?
it has been proven that the majority of the good/great/most producive QB's have been taken in the later rounds. Quinn will go early and so will the LSU QB but the more productive QB will be drafted in the later rounds according to historical evidence. its up to the GM, coaches, and talent evaluators to figure out who that guy is.
I think the Raiders should pick him up... Aaron Brooks is horrible, and the Raiders can run a good West Coast Offense... Gannon did it, and I think it would be great for the Garc... He was excellent down the stretch and was a primary reason the Eagles made the playoffs and won that division.
I think the Raiders should pick him up... Aaron Brooks is horrible, and the Raiders can run a good West Coast Offense... Gannon did it, and I think it would be great for the Garc... He was excellent down the stretch and was a primary reason the Eagles made the playoffs and won that division.
the Raiders could run a good west coast offense when Gruden and Gannon was there, but that was a while ago. they dont have the same players or assistants. they need to get rid of Moss. His attitude is part of the problem. i doubt he will make another worthy Pro Bowl, although i hear Moss may br traded to Green Bay.
Tell me about it. How long did they start Kyle Boller? They wasted a great defense and the best years of Jamal Lewis.
Well, that's true most of the time... There has only been one number 1 draft pick to ever win a superbowl... That's Troy Aikmen... The rest were later round guys.
Remember Ryan Leaf ?
And Peyton Manning as of last night.
True... he made it 2. I should modify that to "2" superbowls... unless payton does it next year as well.
:D
The colts have 12 free agents and 2.5 million in cap space. It will be hard for them to do it again with that situation.
Remember Ryan Leaf ?
The colts have 12 free agents and 2.5 million in cap space. It will be hard for them to do it again with that situation.
I agree... I wouldn't expect another superbowl win from Manning... Looks like he'll be a 1 bowl guy, but he can still pad his stats over the next few years, and perhaps move himself into a top 5 QB of all time rating.
Remember Ryan Leaf ?
If Trent Dilfer could do it, so can Rex Grossman.
If Trent Dilfer could do it, so can Rex Grossman.
Hopefully, they can follow the path of the Colts who got bounced in their first playoff game(like the Ravens) last year only to win it all this year.
For the record he was drafted #2 behind Peyton.
f**k, what kind of scouting did the Chargers have in place to think that Leaf was worthy of the number 2 pick? I can't remember a pick that high that was a complete bust like that.
haha keep dreaming :P
eagles should start garcia and trade mcnabb to his hometown bears for a first round pick and a starter
E
haha keep dreaming :P
eagles should start garcia and trade mcnabb to his hometown bears for a first round pick and a starter
E
The 49ers have the most room at 49 mill. That is a lot of doe!
My niners are gonna be "uber good" the next 6 years
I agree... Frank Gore and Alex Smith had an ok year... Add some D and a couple of top notch Wideouts, you could have a Superbowl contender on your hands.
Grossman fucking sucks. He was pitiful in the superbowl, yet fucking Phil Simms still wouldn't get off his nuts. Anyways, YES! The Bears should get Garcia because they're window will shrink soon.
Most TV football announcers suck, Simms being a perfect example. Nothing to say and almost always continues babbling over plays and refs announcements with long-winded blather because he's not paying attention.
It would really help the product to at least get interesting color announcers since they're almost all bland and don't ad much. Theismann's one of the best, or someone like Boomer and Sharp. Irvin would also be good, as would Tony Siragusa.
Perfect.
I think Garcia's days as a starter are all but done. He turns 37 next month. But then again, Brad johnson started for the Vikings at age 38 this past season. Didn't do the team much good though.
I know a guy who won the Mr Olympia and he was 41...
True, except no one was trying to knock his block off.
Most TV football announcers suck, Simms being a perfect example. Nothing to say and almost always continues babbling over plays and refs announcements with long-winded blather because he's not paying attention.
It would really help the product to at least get interesting color announcers since they're almost all bland and don't ad much. Theismann's one of the best, or someone like Boomer and Sharp. Irvin would also be good, as would Tony Siragusa.
I know a guy who won the Mr Olympia and he was 41...
Michael irvin? You must be hitting the pipe. Then you two would have a lot in common!
Wrong right back at 'cha!
Michael Irvin would not make a good announcer. Anybody else want to chime in on this???
You must be a Cowboys fan........
Wrong right back at 'cha!
Michael Irvin would not make a good announcer. Anybody else want to chime in on this???
You must be a Cowboys fan........
I agree with you, Irvin has to many drawbacks. i also think Sharpe is horrible, for the life of me i can understand what the hell he is saying. and he cant read a telepromper to save his life.
on the other hand i think Phil Simms and Boomer Esiason do a great job.
None of the guys realize that the fact that you have strong feelings against Irvin and Sharpe is exacty part of why Howard Cosell was good-ya really think everyone loved him?
Whereas bland announcers like Phil Simms really don't add anything and aren't really disliked = boring announcers.
Boomer is more opinionated, exactly as Irvin and Sharpe are, which is automatically more interesting whether you like them or not.
Sims is almost as bad a bryant gumbel.
I like Phil Simms just because of his football perspective during the game. Half of this jack off announcers didn't even play in the NFL.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/irvinmug1.html
Incorrect. Irvin's antics are generating police interest. click on the above.
I'm not confusing it, bonehead. I was cracking a joke! ::)
You want to get ugly?
Fine.
You're a fucking idiot and douchebag for suggesting Michael Irvin would make a great NFL commentator. That is just an idiotic, utterly stupid remark. The guy is a crackhead and he doesn't even deserve to be a commentator for ESPN. The only reason he wasn't fired is ESPN execs were fearful that Irvin would file a defamation lawsuit claiming that he was fired because of his race. No major network is willing to risk that kind of negative exposure and don't think that that threat wasn't made by Irvin's attorneys to the ESPN powers-that-be.
In actuality he would have been fired for once again embarrassing himself AND the network for his off camera behavior.
And another thing. f**k him and the Hall of Fame committee for electing Irvin and not the great Art Monk for next year's Hall of Fame class. Absolute bullshit. I'm not saying Monk was a better player than Irvin, but the guy deserves to be in the hall of Fame BEFORE Irvin is elected. Monk was a class act on AND off the field. Monk wasn't the type of guy that would spend all night doing coke binges with two hookers and get arressted for it like Irvin did. The guy's a joke.
Now that's breaking it down, son! F U and Michael Irvin beaatcchhh!
MeltdownAbsafukinlutely. Major issues.
Meltdown
Absafukinlutely. Major issues.
Monk's numbers aren't comparable. You're an amateur with too many personal biases.
How original. ::)
Amateur? What's your professional sports pedigree, yard ape?
And you once again you're wrong. Monks numbers are comparable. Irvin won three rings, Monk 2 rings. Monk led the league in catches one year, Irvin never has. Irvin has had 6 1,000 yards seasons, Monk has had four.
Next question.
Not for me, just common sense. Monk was not the dominant WR Irvin was, as proven by the numbers.
Here idiot. I posted this a few days ago.
Irvin 6 pro bowls, Monk 3, even though Irvin's career was considerably shorter.
Irvin with more great seasons in a shorter period of time. More 1,000 yard seasons, all bunched together in a string unlike Monk who only had 5 in 16 years (nothing special)!
Also had better more dominating post-seasons including more total receiving yards in a shorter time frame you idiot.
Average yards per catch a full 2.4 yard advantage over Monk in his career, tool.
Monk was not nearly as dominating. Irvin, not Monk, was the 2nd best receiver in the NFL for years, behind Rice.
Monk:
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1980 was | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 58 797 13.7 3 |
| 1981 was | 16 | 1 -5 -5.0 0 | 56 894 16.0 6 |
| 1982 was | 9 | 7 21 3.0 0 | 35 447 12.8 1 |
| 1983 was | 12 | 3 -19 -6.3 0 | 47 746 15.9 5 |
| 1984 was | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 106 1372 12.9 7 |
| 1985 was | 15 | 7 51 7.3 0 | 91 1226 13.5 2 |
| 1986 was | 16 | 4 27 6.8 0 | 73 1068 14.6 4 |
| 1987 was | 9 | 6 63 10.5 0 | 38 483 12.7 6 |
| 1988 was | 16 | 7 46 6.6 0 | 72 946 13.1 5 |
| 1989 was | 16 | 3 8 2.7 0 | 86 1186 13.8 8 |
| 1990 was | 16 | 7 59 8.4 0 | 68 770 11.3 5 |
| 1991 was | 16 | 9 19 2.1 0 | 71 1049 14.8 8 |
| 1992 was | 16 | 6 45 7.5 0 | 46 644 14.0 3 |
| 1993 was | 16 | 1 -1 -1.0 0 | 41 398 9.7 2 |
| 1994 nyj | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 46 581 12.6 3 |
| 1995 phi | 3 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 6 114 19.0 0 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 224 | 63 332 5.3 0 | 940 12721 13.5 68 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
Irvin:
| Rushing | Receiving |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| 1988 dal | 14 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 32 654 20.4 5 |
| 1989 dal | 6 | 1 6 6.0 0 | 26 378 14.5 2 |
| 1990 dal | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 20 413 20.6 5 |
| 1991 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 93 1523 16.4 8 |
| 1992 dal | 16 | 1 -9 -9.0 0 | 78 1396 17.9 7 |
| 1993 dal | 16 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 88 1330 15.1 7 |
| 1994 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 79 1241 15.7 6 |
| 1995 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 111 1603 14.4 10 |
| 1996 dal | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 64 962 15.0 2 |
| 1997 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 75 1180 15.7 9 |
| 1998 dal | 16 | 1 1 1.0 0 | 74 1057 14.3 1 |
| 1999 dal | 4 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 10 167 16.7 3 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| TOTAL | 159 | 6 6 1.0 0 | 750 11904 15.9 65 |
+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+
Also the HOF is just thaT. A HALL OF FAME. not a hall of stats. Look at Joe Namaths stats, they are pretty terrible. more INT's than TD's, and he isnt even the leading QB in Jets History, its Ken O'Brian and Ken isnt in the HOF. yes using my own argument of different eras is applicible but still he threw more INT's than TD''s and he is in my point being you cant just use stats.
Wrong right back at 'cha!
Michael Irvin would not make a good announcer. Anybody else want to chime in on this???
You must be a Cowboys fan........
I agree. Irvin is a terrible commentator. He is very lucky he could play football and landed with the Cowboys. He probably would have been pushing a broom otherwise.
No one said stats are the only thing. However it's a lot better than speculation and what-ifs, and when you see an undeniable trend going through multiple reams of stats they're of undeniable importance. By just about any important measure Irvin's out in front, not just one measure.
Aside from stats, plain and simple Monk wasn't usually a dominating receiver.
As far as Namath, it's a little bit like Warren Moon getting in to the HOF. In both cases there were intangibles involved that were very significant, that Monk doesn't have.
I see you point Pump but there are a lot of non dominating players in the HOF now.sadly. Lyn Swan is another one that i dont think belongs in there. but if you rank the best receivers of the eighties you would have to put Monk in that group no?
I think he's far more interesting than the majority of banal announcers on there who have never played the game and offer nothing else that is special. For every guy who dislikes him there's someone who feels the opposite, which is good for ratings even if you don't realize it. Same love/hate for some of the best announcers such as Cosell and Meredith.
No one said stats are the only thing. However it's a lot better than speculation and what-ifs, and when you see an undeniable trend going through multiple reams of stats they're of undeniable importance. By just about any important measure Irvin's out in front, not just one measure.
Aside from stats, plain and simple Monk wasn't usually a dominating receiver.
As far as Namath, it's a little bit like Warren Moon getting in to the HOF. In both cases there were intangibles involved that were very significant, that Monk doesn't have.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.
Agree to disagree, I guess. You bring up credible arguments but I stand by what I say. Art Monk deserves to be in the hall. To say he's not derserving shows me a very short sighted view.
Thanks bro. At least I got one person to agree with me. ;)
I agree with you as well... Monk should easily be in the HOF and should have got in before Irvin... I think Irvin was definitely HOF, but to get in before Monk? Nah... I don't even like Monk, but I do know a good quality HOF receiver when I see one play.
Irvin and Monk are both that, but longevity must also count for something...
Longevity by itself isn't sufficient, and his performance, only five 1,000 yard seasons out of 16, wasn't compelling.
Hope this helps. :D
How many WRs have 5 1000 yard seasons in their entire careers? No matter how long they play?
Much less 5 of them...
The HOF also takes into account how important a player is to a team... You can not tell me that every week when Monk was on the field that the Secondary was not worried about him burning them.
That too counts... You really seem to be against Monk for some reason... Who else in the mid-late 80s was DEFINITIVELY better than him?
Aside from Rice.
Hope this helps too. :D
Wrong again, you're interpreting due to emotionalism. I'm impartial unlike our friend. You and he have given NO compelling reasons for him to be in! Wake up.
You haven't really given too many compelling reasons for him to be out in my opinion... You're touting stats, but that is not what makes a player great.... It's that simple.
And to put the quirky HOF voters in perspective, how about Lynn Swann? 336 receptions for 5,462 yards and 57 TDs. Zero 1,000 yard seasons in his 9-year career. But make a few spectacular catches in the Super Bowl and you're in. ::)
And to put the quirky HOF voters in perspective, how about Lynn Swann? 336 receptions for 5,462 yards and 57 TDs. Zero 1,000 yard seasons in his 9-year career. But make a few spectacular catches in the Super Bowl and you're in. ::)
Getting it done when it counts is good for something... Besides, when Swanny played... the game really was different... The game changed in the mid 80s... the west coast offense took hold and running the ball was not always the priority.
I've given many reasons, go back and read em. I listed them in detail, unlike you. The HOF considered these things and concurred with these facts incidentally, vs. your reasoning that is bereft of concrete reasoning or evidence.
I already explained that the game was different-Monk benefitted from those differences.
As far as "getting it done when it counts" do you realize how lame and general that is? That could apply to half the league.
Hardly... stepping up on the biggest stage in all of football is not even remotely applicable to 1/2 the league.
For you to say it's lame and general obviously shows that you're simply a "stat" guy... You keep on reading those stats... I'll watch football.
No, i just know the game better than you ever will, beginning with the fact that i don't jump to make assumptions about others the way you do, in order to make myself feel better.
So far you have nothing. I've given plenty of detail as to why the HOF agrees with me.
Don't worry, he's well known enough that eventually they'll let him in anyway.
I guess I should be looking for you on ESPN...
Because you so obviously are the most knowledgeable guy around when it comes to football... I can't believe that NBC or Fox hasn't picked you up yet.
You're the football GOD. If someone doesn't believe it, they should just ask you...
Arrogant much?
At least i don't resort to such personal crap when losing the way you are, unable to refute any of the details i listed. ;D
FYI i am knowledge on football. About the only one here who didn't dump on the Colts at the beginning of the season, said they were improved. Look it up genius. ;D ;D ;D
I already explained that the game was different-Monk benefitted from those differences.
As far as "getting it done when it counts" do you realize how lame and general that is?
No, i just know the game better than you ever will
At least i don't resort to such personal crap when losing the way you are, unable to refute any of the details i listed. ;D
FYI i am knowledge on football. About the only one here who didn't dump on the Colts at the beginning of the season. I said specifically that they were improved and the real deal finally. Look it up genius. ;D ;D ;D
The final verdict.
Pump,
Since the Hall apparently "agrees with you"...........You don't think Monk will EVER be voted in?
its intersting the "Hall" decides who is and isnt going into the HOF. The Hall is comprised of a bunch of writters who often have other agendas and never played against the guys they say are not worthy. none of them ever had to line up against Monk on the field
Pump you may have the Hall(bunch of writers) on your side but Mark Schlereth, Marino, and Eric Allen(who lined up against him) say he should be in.
Good point. I actually think they should limit the HOF voters to former players, including all of the current HOF members.
that would make to much sense.
besides the writters would feel neglected. its rediculous that former players or HOF'ers dont get a say.