Which Team?

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by JagHombre22

I'll argue for the Jaguars..

QB: Leftwich, Garrard, Gray, Couch
RB:Taylor, Jones-Drew, Jones
WR: Matt Jones, Ernest Wilford, Reggie Williams, Dennis Northcutt, Mike Walker
TE: Marcedes Lewis, George Wrighster, Jermaine Wiggins, Greg Estandia
OT:Khalif Barnes, Tony Pashos, Mo Williams, Richard Collier, Andrew Carnahan, Dennis Norman
OG: Vince Manuwai, Chris Naole, Stockar McDougle, Pete McMahon
C: Brad Meester, Dennis Norman, Dan Connolley

DE: Hayward, McCray, Spicer, Hawkins, James Wyche
DT: Stroud, Henderson, McDaniels, Meier
LB: Mike Peterson, Daryl Smith, Clint Ingram, Justin Durant,
CB: Rashean Mathis, Brian Williams, Scott Starks, Dee Webb, Terry Cousin
S: Reggie Nelson, Gerald Sensabaugh, Josh Gattis, Jaamal Fudge, Nick Sorensen

Bad argument.

[JK17]

Originally Posted by Race for the Heisman

I understand what you are saying about the fans, as a vast majority were calling for Grossman's head, I was merely pointing out that there is a significant difference between a portion and whole, even though the voice of the masses may drown out the smaller contingent.

Second, although I have already agreed that Rivers is clearly superior to Grossman at this point in their respective careers, surely you can see that if we left it at Grossman is maddeningly inconsistent he wouldn't be perceived at someone who is as far in Rivers' shadow as he currently is viewed. Rivers' situation is in many ways the more enviable of the two so while some of Grossman's struggles inevitably come down to him, if the relative numbers the duo put up along with the relative pressures of their jobs merits a comparison that its not unconceivable that Grossman could be the better quarterback, either in the future, or even now. Its not an argument I'm going to make, because I don't believe Grossman is a top 10 quarterback, you'd have to be insane or the biggest homer ever to subscribe to that belief. I agree with your assessment of 15-20, though, I think when you add up when he's done, both good and bad, its a good fit.

Next, I had already admitted that my outside example was not the most appropriate example, and I explained that sometimes you must combat fire with fire. One ridiculous statement merits another; besides, it was more a pyrotechnic that anything with real substance, much like the post I had quoted.

Although I was perhaps premature in stating that the argument was lost, what I meant was that the losing side of a dispute is the first to degenerate into petty insults. Part of winning an argument is having the fortitude to see it through to the end, or as long as it remains civil.

Fair, I don't think anything you said we could really disagree with there.

[TacticaLion]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

The Bears just traded their 4th safety to the Panthers, and he could probably start at both of their safety positions.

We've got a guy that was 2nd team All-Pro DE as our backup.

It's the Bears.

Oh no! Really? A safety and a DE? Talk about depth!

Bears fans are hilarious. Best QB depth? Yeah, right. Considering Grossman would sit for most teams and Orton is average at best, I'd say the Bears are about middle-of-the-pack in terms of QB depth. 15-20 range.

With Thomas Jones, the Bears MIGHT be high on the RB depth list, but... they don't have him, so they aren't. Benson has some large shoes to fill and, behind him, everyone else is either average or unproven. 20-25 range.

WR? No way. The Moose is old, Berrian is inconsistent and Bradley has yet to break out. 20-25 range.

They have a great LB group, but the depth is weak. Urlacher, Briggs and Hillenmeyer make an outstanding trio, but there's nothing special behind them. 10-15 range.

Tillman and Vasher are emerging studs, but the rest of the group is inconsistent. 15-20.

The one position the Bears have great depth at is DE... Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye and Dan Bazuin... 3 great performers and a rookie with loads of potential. 1-5 range.

I don't need to continue... Bears fans can't claim to have the "best depth" when they are weak at most offensive positions. Yes, we know, you made it to the Super Bowl... that doesn't automatically put you in every "best" football conversation. (You'd probably miss the playoffs if you played in the AFC...)

[JagHombre22]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Bad argument.

Please tell me how that is not one of the deepest defenses in the league?

Sure, the offense doesn't light it up like the colts and chargers but there is obvious depth at each position...

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by TacticaLion

Oh no! Really? A safety and a DE? Talk about depth!

Bears fans are hilarious. Best QB depth? Yeah, right. Considering Grossman would sit for most teams and Orton is average at best, I'd say the Bears are about middle-of-the-pack in terms of QB depth. 15-20 range.

With Thomas Jones, the Bears MIGHT be high on the RB depth list, but... they don't have him, so they aren't. Benson has some large shoes to fill and, behind him, everyone else is either average or unproven. 20-25 range.

WR? No way. The Moose is old, Berrian is inconsistent and Bradley has yet to break out. 20-25 range.

They have a great LB group, but the depth is weak. Urlacher, Briggs and Hillenmeyer make an outstanding trio, but there's nothing special behind them. 10-15 range.

Tillman and Vasher are emerging studs, but the rest of the group is inconsistent. 15-20.

The one position the Bears have great depth at is DE... Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye and Dan Bazuin... 3 great performers and a rookie with loads of potential. 1-5 range.

I don't need to continue... Bears fans can't claim to have the "best depth" when they are weak at most offensive positions. Yes, we know, you made it to the Super Bowl... that doesn't automatically put you in every "best" football conversation. (You'd probably miss the playoffs if you played in the AFC...)

Ugh...your annoying ass is back? God I can't wait to kick the **** out of the Lions again like we do every year. Usually it's a ho-hum game but I'll have fun knowing that you're sad somewhere.

I'm not going to address them all, but depth at QB has nothing to do with the starter. Griese and Orton is one of the best 2-3 combinations in football. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone I'd rather have. Hell, our 5th string Quarterback at the start of the offseason is currently the Lions 2nd stringer. That should say something.

[Average OT LB]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Ugh...your annoying ass is back? God I can't wait to kick the **** out of the Lions again like we do every year. Usually it's a ho-hum game but I'll have fun knowing that you're sad somewhere.

I'm not going to address them all, but depth at QB has nothing to do with the starter. Griese and Orton is one of the best 2-3 combinations in football. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone I'd rather have. Hell, our 5th string Quarterback at the start of the offseason is currently the Lions 2nd stringer. That should say something.

that is simply the dumbest thing i have ever heard. I award you no points. If rivers was so bad that he was making griese (who was run out of town in his previous team) look like the answer.. that must say something. Who cares about ortons wins? what does that mean? that means he wont screw anything up. how much trade value does he have, i guess alot because he can win 10 games for every team just like he did the bears?

depth at the quarterback starts with the starter- if you got petyon manning who never gets hurt thats all the depth you need. Of course bears fans would say the opposite, because they dont have that now do they?

[Addict]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Ugh...your annoying ass is back? God I can't wait to kick the **** out of the Lions again like we do every year. Usually it's a ho-hum game but I'll have fun knowing that you're sad somewhere.

I'm not going to address them all, but depth at QB has nothing to do with the starter. Griese and Orton is one of the best 2-3 combinations in football. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone I'd rather have. Hell, our 5th string Quarterback at the start of the offseason is currently the Lions 2nd stringer. That should say something.

let's not forget who's starting for the bears before you go and laugh at Lions QB's...

lol
Rex: awww the ball is too heavy for my nimble body! <breaks down in tears>

[TheChampIsHere]

Originally Posted by Smooth Criminal

The Chargers do have very good depth at most positions. Only weak areas in my mind are at QB, WR, and DB.

i dont see the weakness there

QB - Rivers, Volek, Whitehurst - great group of QBs in my mind
WR - Jackson, Floyd, Parker, Craig Davis, Osgood - no standouts but 5 good receivers and I think Jackson and Floyd are both breakout candidates and Davis is a 1st rounder with loads of potential
CB - Jammer, Florence, Cromartie, Paul Oliver, Gordon - no big stars but the first 3 are all good, Oliver has plenty of potential
S - Weddle, McCree, Jue, Hart - Not a lot of star power but McCree is solid and Weddle should be good and the other guys are solid backups

Overall, Id say they have great depth at all those positions. They might not have star players at the positions but lots of good players.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by Average OT LB

depth at the quarterback starts with the starter- if you got petyon manning who never gets hurt thats all the depth you need. Of course bears fans would say the opposite, because they dont have that now do they?

Depth is your backups. Are the Colts or Patriots deep at QB? **** no. Anyone that argues otherwise doesn't know what depth means.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by Addict

let's not forget who's starting for the bears before you go and laugh at Lions QB's...

lol
Rex: awww the ball is too heavy for my nimble body! <breaks down in tears>

And yet he's still better than anyone on the Lions. In fact, I would take Griese over Kitna, and would barely take Kitna over Orton. I mean...your backup QB is J.T O'Sullivan. I don't care who your recievers are, you can't have a high octane offense is you don't have anyone to distribute it.

[Average OT LB]

Originally Posted by TheChampIsHere

i dont see the weakness there

QB - Rivers, Volek, Whitehurst - great group of QBs in my mind
WR - Jackson, Floyd, Parker, Craig Davis, Osgood - no standouts but 5 good receivers and I think Jackson and Floyd are both breakout candidates and Davis is a 1st rounder with loads of potential
CB - Jammer, Florence, Cromartie, Paul Oliver, Gordon - no big stars but the first 3 are all good, Oliver has plenty of potential
S - Weddle, McCree, Jue, Hart - Not a lot of star power but McCree is solid and Weddle should be good and the other guys are solid backups

Overall, Id say they have great depth at all those positions. They might not have star players at the positions but lots of good players.

I agree, no star power (except rivers) but big time depth.. but there is kinda a rex grossman effect with the S how the 3rd best safety might be better than the first

[TimD]

bears > lions... how are lions fans even saying anything bears fans... you guys are idiots... have a .500 season then talk

[Average OT LB]

Originally Posted by mangini for pres

bears > lions... how are lions fans even saying anything bears fans... you guys are idiots... have a .500 season then talk

the lions organization may be foolish but as far as fans go that is not true...

what has it been a season since mangini has been at the helm? i hope you havent forgotten the half decade you spent crying behind the patriots in the standings

[Addict]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

And yet he's still better than anyone on the Lions. In fact, I would take Griese over Kitna, and would barely take Kitna over Orton. I mean...your backup QB is J.T O'Sullivan. I don't care who your recievers are, you can't have a high octane offense is you don't have anyone to distribute it.

low blow, and kitna is a very servicable QB, nothing spectacular I agree, but he's not as bad as you make him out to be. And don't take everything so serious, just be a man and admit that your team's biggest flaw is an average QB.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by Addict

low blow, and kitna is a very servicable QB, nothing spectacular I agree, but he's not as bad as you make him out to be. And don't take everything so serious, just be a man and admit that your team's biggest flaw is an average QB.

Haha..."be a man". You realize this is the internet right? Obviously our biggest question mark is at QB, but as I've said I don't consider starters depth. The thread is about best depth, if depth included starters it would be "best team", which is a totally different discussion.

[Average OT LB]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Depth is your backups. Are the Colts or Patriots deep at QB? **** no. Anyone that argues otherwise doesn't know what depth means.

so then every team with a quarterback constroversy has great depth? because each one can be the starter? i know what depth means but theres a larger picture here.

I'm not arguing that the colts have a better 2nd and 3rd qb than the bears (like anyone cares) what im arguing is that there are alot of teams that dont have to worry about their starter so they let guys like griese go to the teams that need them - the bears. If back up qb meant something than the penny pinchers in chicago sure as hell wouldnt be able to out bid the abundance of teams going to get a backup.

its not really a fair argument to compare qb depth if only a couple of teams really care to participate, like the colts and pats do.

[bearsfan_51]

Originally Posted by Average OT LB

so then every team with a quarterback constroversy has great depth? because each one can be the starter? i know what depth means but theres a larger picture here.

I'm not arguing that the colts have a better 2nd and 3rd qb than the bears (like anyone cares) what im arguing is that there are alot of teams that dont have to worry about their starter so they let guys like griese go to the teams that need them - the bears. If back up qb meant something than the penny pinchers in chicago sure as hell wouldnt be able to out bid the abundance of teams going to get a backup.

its not really a fair argument to compare qb depth if only a couple of teams really care to participate, like the colts and pats do.

The reason why people care about depth is because every position is one injury away from someone else being your starter. If Manning goes down the Colts are instantly a 2-14 team. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Obviously I would rather have their QB situation than ours, but that's not the subject. For you to try to revert that by jokes or smartass comments doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

By the way, the Bears payroll is above the average in the league. We spent about 30 million this offseason just on signing bonuses for our cornerbacks alone. We aren't the Redskins, Colts, or Cowboys, but the perception that the Bears are unwilling to spend money is false.

[Addict]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

The reason why people care about depth is because every position is one injury away from someone else being your starter. If Manning goes down the Colts are instantly a 2-14 team. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Obviously I would rather have their QB situation than ours, but that's not the subject. For you to try to revert that by jokes or smartass comments doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

By the way, the Bears payroll is above the average in the league. We spent about 30 million this offseason just on signing bonuses for our cornerbacks alone. We aren't the Redskins, Colts, or Cowboys, but the perception that the Bears are unwilling to spend money is false.

that's a bit harsh, their O-line, Harrison and Wayne, Addai and an okay defense in a division with the Titans and Texans should still get them a few wins, maybe 6-10 at worst. Still, a Manning injury would be devastating. to Manning's career, because Jimmy Sorgi will come in and make Manning look like a n00b

[princefielder28]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

The reason why people care about depth is because every position is one injury away from someone else being your starter. If Manning goes down the Colts are instantly a 2-14 team. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Obviously I would rather have their QB situation than ours, but that's not the subject. For you to try to revert that by jokes or smartass comments doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

Don't say that about Jim Sorgi :)

[Average OT LB]

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

The reason why people care about depth is because every position is one injury away from someone else being your starter. If Manning goes down the Colts are instantly a 2-14 team. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. Obviously I would rather have their QB situation than ours, but that's not the subject. For you to try to revert that by jokes or smartass comments doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

By the way, the Bears payroll is above the average in the league. We spent about 30 million this offseason just on signing bonuses for our cornerbacks alone. We aren't the Redskins, Colts, or Cowboys, but the perception that the Bears are unwilling to spend money is false.

okay youre right that my argument doesnt change the fact that the bears have good depth. but it does change the argument another way.

say the bears had the number one depth.. there are 32 teams.. in my opinion the bears would then have the number one depth of say.. 16 teams cause there are just a bunch of teams that dont go for the griese's of the world nad dont have the inconsistancy in the qb position to have a guy like orton even get a chance.. it says something about the inconsistancy of the qb position if you know how good your third qb is.. (who is the 3rd qb on the colts)

as for depth, yes the colts are one injury away from being 2-14 and thats the importance of depth, but not everyone has the same approach to especially backup quarterbacks.. remember some teams recently didnt even have 3 qbs on the roster.. the colts just simply arent going to spend money on a backup qb when they could put it somewhere else.. which skews the argument

[bearfan]

Originally Posted by Average OT LB

okay youre right that my argument doesnt change the fact that the bears have good depth. but it does change the argument another way.

say the bears had the number one depth.. there are 32 teams.. in my opinion the bears would then have the number one depth of say.. 16 teams cause there are just a bunch of teams that dont go for the griese's of the world nad dont have the inconsistancy in the qb position to have a guy like orton even get a chance.. it says something about the inconsistancy of the qb position if you know how good your third qb is.. (who is the 3rd qb on the colts)

Remember he was pretty much the manager when Grossman went down in I think it was '05? As a rookie, asked not to make to many mistakes, and then get 10 wins *im not saying he did it, but he did his job* gives us an idea of what he can do as a rookie. Now into his 3rd season, he is challenging Greise for the #2 spot. Griese is not amazing, but he is a solid player, and that says a lot about the progression of Kyle Orton if you ask me.

Then you bring up the fact that we went for Griese because of our QB inconsistancies... at the time Rex was labeled injury prone. And the inconsistancy came during the season after we had Griese. It was a roller coaster w/ him last season, but no one knew that it would be like that, it was because we needed a viable backup incase Rex went down again that we got Griese. It also doesnt hurt to have a good veteran precense *sp* for young QBs like Grossman, and Orton.

Anyone who thinks that the Bears have no real good depth needs to go check their facts. Not looking at anyone in specific *tactalion*.

[TimD]

Originally Posted by Average OT LB

the lions organization may be foolish but as far as fans go that is not true...

what has it been a season since mangini has been at the helm? i hope you havent forgotten the half decade you spent crying behind the patriots in the standings

okay maybe calling lions fans idiots was too far... but i really don't think a team like the lions has bragging rights over a team like the bears... once again i apologize

[Average OT LB]

Originally Posted by bearfan

Remember he was pretty much the manager when Grossman went down in I think it was '05? As a rookie, asked not to make to many mistakes, and then get 10 wins *im not saying he did it, but he did his job* gives us an idea of what he can do as a rookie. Now into his 3rd season, he is challenging Greise for the #2 spot. Griese is not amazing, but he is a solid player, and that says a lot about the progression of Kyle Orton if you ask me.

Then you bring up the fact that we went for Griese because of our QB inconsistancies... at the time Rex was labeled injury prone. And the inconsistancy came during the season after we had Griese. It was a roller coaster w/ him last season, but no one knew that it would be like that, it was because we needed a viable backup incase Rex went down again that we got Griese. It also doesnt hurt to have a good veteran precense *sp* for young QBs like Grossman, and Orton.

Anyone who thinks that the Bears have no real good depth needs to go check their facts. Not looking at anyone in specific *tactalion*.

What i meant by inconsistancy was not only poor play but the lack of a consistant starter ie injuries... both played a part in the bears having to go get griese and having orton start...

i know thats a news flash i meant it more to clarify than anything else

[TheChampIsHere]

Originally Posted by TacticaLion

Oh no! Really? A safety and a DE? Talk about depth!

Bears fans are hilarious. Best QB depth? Yeah, right. Considering Grossman would sit for most teams and Orton is average at best, I'd say the Bears are about middle-of-the-pack in terms of QB depth. 15-20 range.

With Thomas Jones, the Bears MIGHT be high on the RB depth list, but... they don't have him, so they aren't. Benson has some large shoes to fill and, behind him, everyone else is either average or unproven. 20-25 range.

WR? No way. The Moose is old, Berrian is inconsistent and Bradley has yet to break out. 20-25 range.

They have a great LB group, but the depth is weak. Urlacher, Briggs and Hillenmeyer make an outstanding trio, but there's nothing special behind them. 10-15 range.

Tillman and Vasher are emerging studs, but the rest of the group is inconsistent. 15-20.

The one position the Bears have great depth at is DE... Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye and Dan Bazuin... 3 great performers and a rookie with loads of potential. 1-5 range.

I don't need to continue... Bears fans can't claim to have the "best depth" when they are weak at most offensive positions. Yes, we know, you made it to the Super Bowl... that doesn't automatically put you in every "best" football conversation. (You'd probably miss the playoffs if you played in the AFC...)

Youre not giving the Bears enough credit and when we talk about who has the best depth, whether or not they have great starters doesnt have much to do with the conversation.

QB - Yes Grossman is a poor starter but Griese and Orton are both good backups. Griese has done great things as a backup for other teams and they won a lot of games when Orton had to play.
HB - Yes, losing Thomas Jones is a blow to their depth but Adrian Peterson is a very underrated backup and they picked up Garrett Wolfe, they also have a FB Im a big fan of JD Runnells.
TE - Clark is one of the top backup TEs in the league
WR - Moose, Berrian, Bradley, Davis and Hester....With Berrian, Bradley and Hester yet to realize their potential and Moose declining there is no standout in the unit really but theres a lot of talent in that group and considering how young Berrian Bradley and Hester are we have to expect improvement from them.
OL - not great depth but some decent guys in Ruben Brown, Josh Beekman and John St. Clair
DL - Great depth here Mark Anderson and Bazuin coming off the bench, Darwin Walker, Dusty Dvoracek, a lot of bodies to come off the bench and complement their great group of starters.
LB - yes great starting lineup but the backups arent as bad as you pretend. Leon Joe aint bad and Okwo is a talented rook who could very easily be starting next year, assuming Briggs walks. Not the deepest unit, but in the cover 2 you dont need to have an abundance of bodies at LB nor do you need to have great backups because average players can be plugged in and be servicable starters.
DB - Hmmm...You say they just have Tillman and Vasher but sorry thats just dumb. Ricky Manning gets hated on but hes a good nickel back. Yes hes a risk taker and gets beat a good amount but the dude is a playmaker, 53 tackles, 5 INT, 2 sacks, 2 FR and a TD from a nickel back is pretty damn impressive. Now Im not gonna hype him and act like hes as good of a player as those stats might suggest, because those are borderline pro-bowl numbers, but to say hes not a good nickel back is ludicrous. Also as backups in their secondary, they have Archuleta and Dante Wesley....The fact that they could just deal off Chris Harris the way they did speaks to the depth of their secondary.

[DaBears9654]

Originally Posted by TacticaLion

Oh no! Really? A safety and a DE? Talk about depth!

Bears fans are hilarious. Best QB depth? Yeah, right. Considering Grossman would sit for most teams and Orton is average at best, I'd say the Bears are about middle-of-the-pack in terms of QB depth. 15-20 range.

With Thomas Jones, the Bears MIGHT be high on the RB depth list, but... they don't have him, so they aren't. Benson has some large shoes to fill and, behind him, everyone else is either average or unproven. 20-25 range.

WR? No way. The Moose is old, Berrian is inconsistent and Bradley has yet to break out. 20-25 range.

They have a great LB group, but the depth is weak. Urlacher, Briggs and Hillenmeyer make an outstanding trio, but there's nothing special behind them. 10-15 range.

Tillman and Vasher are emerging studs, but the rest of the group is inconsistent. 15-20.

The one position the Bears have great depth at is DE... Mark Anderson, Alex Brown, Adewale Ogunleye and Dan Bazuin... 3 great performers and a rookie with loads of potential. 1-5 range.

I don't need to continue... Bears fans can't claim to have the "best depth" when they are weak at most offensive positions. Yes, we know, you made it to the Super Bowl... that doesn't automatically put you in every "best" football conversation. (You'd probably miss the playoffs if you played in the AFC...)

A Kittens fan saying the 2-years-running division (and defending conference) champs are average. Let's see. Regular season records over the last 2 years.
Bears: 24-8
Kittens: 8-24

Last time I checked, an "average" team would have been more around 16-16 in 2 years, not 24-8 with 2 division titles.