Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by BradMustersGhost, Oct 21, 2013.
History would love to hear it, b/c it's going to prove you're wrong.
If you extrapolate McCown's numbers over the time he played in Washington to 16 games, he would have 4352 yards passing, 704 yards rushing, and 21 TDs with 0 interceptions.
You can't argue with numbers like that :).
LOL.... you cannot play that game.
How long did McCown have before the pocket collapsed that last play? Did the wide outs even have the time to make it into the end zone for that low probability Hail Mary?
Look, McCown played well enough for the Bears to win. The low percentage play that the Bears have no excuse for allowing was the big bomb that had both Conte and Tillman covering in the end zone was more damaging than McCown not getting a desperation bomb off with 12 seconds left. Gould missing a field goal hurt us because it's easier to try for field goal position at the end of the game than a touchdown. There are so many aspects here that are in play.
Anyone should have moved the ball on Washington's defense, but Cutler wasn't. McCown hasn't had snaps with the ones since August, but I guess even Blanchard would have moved the ball on this horrible Washington D because they didn't have tape on him either.
But yeah, it's all about arm strength. I've noticed your wounded duck to good pass ratio is slowly creeping into a "McCown is horrible" range than your earlier comments about the guy. Because that's what makes a successful backup QB. Not running the offense and moving the ball into scoring positions.
Hahaha, I was hoping to get a good laugh out of you.
I'm just being snarky here. I'm supporting a guy that is by all accounts is a solid teammate that likes to teach the other players as much as he can. So don't get like really mad at me or my guy McCown for me being annoying. This is all in good fun.
Besides, this is all academic. We are going to get pounded against Green Bay because our defense in two weeks is going to consist entirely of ex-bartenders and bouncers we signed off the street that couldn't stop a high school team.
^^^ While McCown did well yesterday it will be a nerve-racking game against the slacks.
I don't like McCown and thought he was a waste of back up. He had a respectable game. He surprised me. I am happy for the Bears and him to show something out there. I don't expect him to be a long term starter.
I like how now everybody is dismissing what McCown did. Jay has gotten all kinds of praise for being able to 'deal with' so many differnet offenses over his tenur in Chicago. "Give Jay some more time, he needs to learn the system to perform in the first half (not this weeks issue)." Now, when McCown (who I don't really like) steps in and runs the system they are saying he should be able to because he is a professional. You can't have it both ways either McCown stepped up or Jay isn't the superstar in their eyes.
Yeah I think many are missing the original point.
This is NOT a "McCown is better than Cutler thread"
This is a "If McCown can preform with similar or better results as Cutler, does it prove Cutler is very replaceable and nowhere near a top qb"
And the answer to that hypothetical question is yes. If McCown performs well and puts up similar numbers to jays "good" games (300 yds 3 tds 1int) on a CONSISTENT basis it dosent mean we should start him, it just means we can replace cutler without nearly the backlash we assume. IMO McCown performing well would really take the negotiating leverage away from Cutler.
I got the premise, I just dismissed it b/c it has no basis in reality.
Really there is though. If McCown plays similar to cutler for 4-6 games...then what makes him "100 million dollars special?"
I'm no cutler hater or lover. Really don't have strong feelings for him but this is a good experiment. Offense hums and McCown can run an efficient system it says something about the value of cutler and what life POTENTIALLY would be like without him. Now the adverse effect may happen if the offense tries 2 or 3 qbs while he's out and none can move the ball.
Cutler's arm and athletic ability make him special, there is nothing special about McCowns arm, and you saw that on the last play of the game when he needed extra time to try and get a 50 yard pass. Hell even McCown will tell you that.
Now if you want to say that Trestman's O doesn't need a dynamic strong arm'd qb and therefore they shouldn't put 100mil into the position, fine I'll listen, but I don't think Emery will.
Riczaj01, perhaps over the course of the next 3-4 weeks, McCown will prove to be more disciplined and focused than Cutler is. Isn't that, at the VERY least, a possibility? Maybe the wasted time outs and pathetically slow starts won't plague us with McNown, as they did the Cutler. Ever consider that?!
Thank you, Grizzblue. MANY indeed have "missed the point" of this thread. They did their best to transform it into a "This guy is saying McCown is better than Cutler!" thread, regardless of the fact that I went out of my way (multiple times) to state what you have just stated.
BMG, I don't know what to expect. The guy has more int's in his career then TD's, and i'm not even including fumbles, he's averages just over 6 yards a completion, and is a sub 60% passing completion. Wash didn't study for him, and he had a career day. Could he be like that b/c of Trestman, or b/c the D was prepared for him, or both. My guess is both, but what %? I don't know.
After Rex/Orton/Griese and a very up and down Cutler ride, not to mention the rest of the fails that aren't worth bringing up, I'm not holding my breath for anything more then what McCown has always been. All I can do beyond that is hope he's more like yesterday then the rest of his career and that Trestman had more to do w/it then Wash did.
Is it possible he'll be better, well to be fair every qb has had career years under Tresty, so it's possible. But coming in mid game is a big difference then coming in when the team you're facing has time to gameplan against you...and worse then that the game will be on his shoulders once GB has a 2-3 TD lead on the Bears.
I believe in Josh McCown.
I do respect fans who stick by players like you do. I do hope Josh does well, or at least hope he will be respectable as a backup. If we could be .500 during his tenure at QB, I think that would be solid for a backup QB. I do like how he protected the football. I do believe the Trestman offense is a good match for his skill set. He's a smart player too.
And for David's sake, I hope CornWash gets some good reps and does well too.
I'm just sick over the injury situation in general, and the failure of our defense in particular.
If you extrapolate Jacob's #'s from the Chicago NYG game, he'd have 1K total yards and 18 rushing TD's. I know you're joking, but just to point out how 1 game extrapolations work so well in the NFL ;p
but speaking of extrapolating, lets take a real look at what Forte might well look like at the end of 16 weeks.
265 rush attempts, 80 rec's, 1218 rush yards, 598 rec' yards, and 13 TD's w/2 fumbles, both lost.
So 345 attempts, 1817 yards and 13 TD's. Those are career/probowl type #'s in my book, not bad for a non elite rb that the Bears overpaid.
Now obviously the chances of him keeping up that pace is unrealistic, but I could easily see 1300-1500 yards and 10 TD's is pretty realistic if he stays healthy, and those are pretty damn good #'s for any rb.
I hope McCown plays well, I will ALWAYS root for players to have success, even when I am not optimistic. Shit, I stood by Rex when everyone else was dumping on him because I wanted him to succeed. Not to be right but because I am a Bears fan. I want McCown to be successful and make us forget about Cutler. That would be great!
I do not and will not root for someone to fail just so I can say "I told you so", I will gladly admit I was wrong about him if he can keep the Bears head above water and win us a few games.
I think a team like the Vikings would love a QB like McCown about now. I think he'll be fine, but he won't help us beat the Packers. Our D is too much to overcome at this point.
Separate names with a comma.