Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by The Benjamin, Nov 18, 2013.
Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
Or better yet, Jacksonville.
Which backup do you think is better?
McCown has to be playing the best of any current QB backup right now. I like we have him playing. I don't sweat Cutler being out. I just want him to get all the way healed this time.
Not a single one of those EXPERTS unequivocally stated Culter IS 100% health....it's a bunch of IF he's 100%...he SEEMS to be 100%...he's TELLING me/us he's 100%....
I don't necessarily blame Culter for going in when he knew he was only 90 something %...just don't tell me he was 100%...not the way he was moving and crouch grabbing almost from the first snap....
Exactly. I saw it many times after the play and I'm sure it showed up on tv too. He was hurting in the second half from BOTH. The Bears may not want to say it but eyes don't lie.
I keep Cutler and Briggs out until Dallas in early December. Ratliff will be ready then too. If we can't beat St. Louis and Minnesota then we don't deserve a playoff spot anyway IMO.
Okay, let's take 100% out of the argument for just a second: I posted somewhere else, quarter by quarter stats of Jay Cutler, and the stats show he was not only accurate for the first half, but he was also able to throw deep AND drive down the field multiple times. The Chicago Bears organization has flat out said that he suffered an ankle injury in the second quarter, and his dip in play in the second half (mostly the 4th quarter) gives credence to this. SO, let's say for a second that his groin WAS still bothering him going into the game, why then, was he still very effective until his ankle injury? All you have is anecdotal evidence to support your claim that the groin injury was the reason for his dip in play (he was holding his groin), without being able to reconcile the fact that he was playing very well until he suffered an ankle injury.
I have said nothing of the sort...how well he was statistically playing is NOT relevant to my point and I have never even mentioned it...my whole point was and remains that playing injured or not a 100% opens a greater possibility of other injuries occurring...I have no way to prove that is what happened; just as you have no way to prove it didn't...if he was 100%, then I have no argument...however, if you coincide he wasn't 100% (which you appear now to have done), then my argument/opinion has just as much validity and possibility as yours...