It's the lunar eclipse with Big Ben in the foreground.
After sleeping in following the fish fry last night, the same third wheel couple from the fish fry (Greg and Kim, Hi guys!) gave me a call to say they couldn't make it over tonight to watch a pay-per-view Ultimate Fight match because they too got a late start and were still in the suburbs shopping. Then they asked if I wanted to join them in going to a movie, Ghost Rider. Sounded fun to me, so I drove out to York Town Mall, met them at Kohl's, went to Hooters for some quick food and a drink(every place was freakin' packed on Saturday at 6, ugh, even at Hooters we had to sit at the bar) and then hit the movie. If you haven't seen the movie and are planning on it, you might want to skip the next paragraph where I critique some scenes.
I realize with movies that there is a suspension of disbelief, and I'm fine with that, but inconsistencies bug me. For instance, while in Ghost Rider form, the character gets stabbed and the next day while in his normal form, he is getting the injury sewn up. Fine. Then later in the movie, he is shot up hundreds of times by the police and there is no problem the next day. I'm fine if you can't hurt the Ghost Rider, that's great, I'm all that. But don't do one thing and then contradict it later. His regular leather jacket never had holes in it either and that bothered me. Cage's character saying no to the unbelievably gorgeous Eva Mendes is just absurd. There's not enough weed on the planet for me to smoke to believe that's going to happen. Unfortunately they don't really have any chemistry on stage either, which is a shame. Also, towards the end, the old Ghost Rider rides his horse while Cage's character rides his motorcycle to the old ghost town 500 miles away. Then the old Ghost Rider just turns back to normal and dissipates. Why the hell make the trip if you're not even going to help fight satan's kids in the ghost town? Just stupid. I think I actually threw my hands up in the theater at that point.
Ok, on to other topics.
I think I've finally gone over the edge as a Bear's fan. Now, more so than in the past, no matter what happens in the NFL, I somehow relate it to the Bears. The latest thing that's been mentally taxing on me is free agency and the opening of trading season for the the NFL. As such, I've decided to keep track of everyone that switches teams through free agency (and possibly trades if it's for a draft pick) who I believe could have helped the Bears or is a better player than what we have at that position. Obviously MOST if not ALL quarterbacks are better than Grossman, so they will make the list almost by default. I'll leave off the obscene contracts that we couldn't afford (i.e. Nate Clements at cornerback, Eric Steinbach at guard).
So let's start the list!!
Jeff Garcia, QB Jake Plummer, QB Adalius Thomas, OLB Kyle Brady, TE
Daniel Graham, TE (not signed yet)
I anticipate the list growing quite long. Ugh.
Finally, I thought this was interesting when I ran across it on Wikipedia today. Can you name the last five vice presidents? Extra credit if you can name the sixth past VP. See yesterday's entry for the answer.
10 comments:
We are so with you Joe, Ray and I went to see ghost rider as well. And while I think Peter Fonda is the worst actor on earth, I think there was no better choice than Sam Elliott for the Original Ghost Rider, he is so a COWBOY! My gripe besides Peter Fonda, was Nic Cage oggling his body in a mirror...(I smell body double or at least air brushing). No way on earth he is cut like that...no way...
man, I am feeling like I need to repeat the 5th grade with all these quizes. I may save this film for rental
I'm no football expert, but I sure wouldn't want Plummer for Grossman. Grossman may be better than Plummer now, but even if he isn't he still has more upside.
Bee you are right on about the body double thing. That was a joke! He looked like LL Cool-J!! Sam Elliott was perfect. No one else should even be allowed to play a cowboy.
Don't worry Alexis, that's just more stuff you don't need to know!
dejesus, if Plummer was quarterbacking the team the last five games of the year, the Bears are the Super Bowl champs. I say five games to give him a chance to get used to the receivers. Grossman has NO upside. He's horrible. His mechanics suck. He's a deer in headlights and when the NFL comes out with the "sounds of the game" version of the Super Bowl you'll hear that is exactly what the colts were saying. "Hit him hard because he's scared". If even Griese starts the second half the Bears probably win.
The key to your sentence, Joe, is the word "was." You may be correct in that sentence (I disagree), but the question isn't who you would've wanted for the last five games; it's who you want for next season and the seasons after that.
Plummer's toast, in my opinion. At his best, he was questionable, but I don't think he's there anymore. While he may have beaten the Packers and looked better against the Bucs, there's no way he (or Griese) would've beaten the Colts -- not only because they aren't good, but because the Bears didn't lose because of Grossman; they lost because of Grossman AND an offensive line that couldn't block AND a defense that couldn't tackle AND a defensive game plan that let Peyton Manning pick them apart with 10-15 yard passes whenever he wanted them. The Bears defense was tremendous for the first 8-10 games and massively overrated after that.
As for Grossman? You're right that his mechanics suck, but he has had some really good games (remember September?). Seeing that he's only started something like 20-25 games and that he has shown flashes of brilliance, I think it's a bit too soon to conclude that there is absolutely no upside. This isn't to say that he shouldn't have competition or a short leash, but I certainly don't think "has beens" or "never was's" like Plummer, Griese, or Orton are going to be any improvement in the long run.
Actually my point was an answer to two questions: who, other than Rex, would have won the Super Bowl with the Bears (answer: any other qb in the NFL) and two: who could the Bears win with in 2007? Plummer is still preferred in my mind over Grossman. Even Rick Reilly realized how lame Grossman is: "He couldn't do the simplest things. He muffed snaps. He was intercepted twice. He fumbled twice. He sacked himself. He seemed to be playing in ski boots and oven mitts. He came into this game with the reputation as possibly the worst quarterback ever to reach the Super Bowl and somehow tarnished that."
Despite the defensive scheme by Rivera, the Bears were still in the game until Grossman had one of his fumbles and both picks (all in the second half). A veteran, Griese, Plummer, Brad Johnson, Garcia, basically anyone, can take the snap from center without fumbling and keep at least one drive alive (and Manning off the field). Any of those QB's also could have hit a wide open Berrian who had two steps on the defenders. Any of those QB's also would have thrown the ball away, instead of under throwing the double covered Muhammad and giving away 7 pts. As much as I'd like to blame Rivera, the problem was Grossman.
While in the long run those qbs aren't the answer (I agree), in the NFL, you only rarely have the chance to go to or win a Super Bowl. It's a narrow window and the Bears should be focused on this year, or possibly 2008. Beyond that, their window of opportunity is very hazy anyway.
who, other than Rex, would have won the Super Bowl with the Bears (answer: any other qb in the NFL)
That's patently untrue. You want names? Let's review the NFL QBs out there -- Charlie Frye? Andrew Walter? Eli Manning? Tarvaris Jackson? Bruce Gradkowski? You really think that each and every one of them would've beaten the Colts that day -- with a defense that could neither cover receivers nor tackle and an offensive line that couldn't block?
You're nuts. They didn't lose the Super Bowl because of Grossman; it was a team effort.
Anyway, as I said, there's no doubt that Grossman was lousy over the second half of the season. This may be the only time I'll ever agree with Rick Reilly about anything. There's also no doubt that Plummer has always been lousy, over an extended period of time. There's also no doubt in my mind that Grossman was excellent in the first 6 games of the season and has only 20-25 NFL starts.
I'm not saying that he'll be good next year or even that he'll be better than he was at the end of last season. I'm just saying that I like the chances of it far more than I like the chance of Brian Griese, Kyle Orton, or Jake Frickin' Plummer doing anything. There are reasons why those retreads are on the scrap heap -- it's because they have a history of fumbling, missing open receivers, and blowing drives that goes back a lot longer than Grossman's. Why do you think none of those guys have starting NFL gigs? Is there some sort of conspiracy against them?
They did indeed lose the Super Bowl BECAUSE OF GROSSMAN. With a different quarterback, the turnovers may not have happened and the defense would not have been on the field as much, hence they would be fresher and possibly, they would have performed better. Rivera was still to blame for the schemes, but without the Grossman fiascos (yes plural) the pressure could have been put back on Manning and who knows if he would have crumbled. He didn't play well in the first half so maybe he would have.
Of the qb's you listed, Grossman might only be better than Andrew Walter. Eli is 10x the qb. Tavaris has 5x the talent. Gradkowski was a true rookie who almost got Tampa into the playoffs single-handedly. Frye had no talent around him unfortunately, otherwise he could have shown just how good he is. Grossman would suck on the early '80's 49er teams!!
With a different quarterback, the turnovers may not have happened and the defense would not have been on the field as much, hence they would be fresher and possibly, they would have performed better.
If you're correct, then would've we have seen a lot of "three and outs, " at least in the beginning of the game and after halftime?
In the first quarter, the Colts had the ball five times, controlling the ball for 8:32. They had one "three and out" that quarter -- the only one they had the entire game.
In the third quarter, the Colts took the kickoff and went on a 7:34 drive against the "fresh" Bears defense, driving 56 yards to kick a field goal. They went on to hold the ball twice more, controlling the ball 10:55 in the quarter.
If the Bears defense was "worn out," it wasn't because of Grossman; it was because they couldn't make tackles or cover receivers, allowing Manning to methodically move the ball down the field. The team did not lose because of Grossman; it was a complete team effort.
As for the other QBs, Eli and Grossman are a push, IMO. Tavarez may have more talent, who knows, but that doesn't mean squat -- otherwise, the two best QBs in the history of the NFL would be Todd Marinovich and Vinny Testaverde. Either way, you aren't saying that Tavarez would've won the Super Bowl, are you?
I'm not saying that Grossman is good. I just think that he's been the scapegoat for a lot of things that were not his fault and that you need to ratchet down your hyperbole about 10 notches.
Not necessarily three and outs, but we did in fact see a colts offense that was contained. The score was 16-14 at half even after a fumble by Grossman giving Manning yet another chance for points from the Bears 35, but thankfully the fg was wide left. The defense was still containing him and that's all a defense can do again Manning. Even at the end of the game they had only scored 22 pts on the defense. If Grossman did ANYTHING other than fumble twice and throw two picks, you win the game. It's that simple!!
The defense could have played different schemes; for that I blame Rivera. Still, if the offense does anything, the pressure would have built up on Manning. He was playing with house money because he knew Grossman sucked and wouldn't do anything on offense. All of those stats about the defense you mention led to only 22 pts! That's it! 12 times during the year, including the playoffs, the colts scored more than 22. Sure, maybe some of those games had defensive scores, but I don't have all day. The point is the same, you hold manning to 22 points and you win the game....unless you have Grossman at qb.
Post a Comment