- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 37,894
- Liked Posts:
- 41,320
So, we're all happy with where Trubisky and the Bears are today. Is there really any point in continuing this?
- Status
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,135
- Liked Posts:
- 50,777
Are you "glad" though?
The Boletarian
Active member
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 938
- Liked Posts:
- 191
- Joined:
- Aug 10, 2013
- Posts:
- 36,376
- Liked Posts:
- 33,310
- Location:
- Cumming
Can we instead talk about how I posted that Parkey would replace Gould's production? Will that make everyone feel better?
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 37,894
- Liked Posts:
- 41,320
Glad as a ten gallon trash bag.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,135
- Liked Posts:
- 50,777
me too
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 12,206
- Liked Posts:
- 11,525
- Location:
- Richmond, VA
My favorite teams
Again he did not say that at all, you keep making up his words in your head. he said:
Use your deductive reasoning here.
A team that misses the playoffs has approximately a 0.0000000% chance of making a Super Bowl.
A team that makes the playoffs has a 16.666666666% chance at making a Super Bowl.
If Trubisky's play could potentially cost the Bears a chance at playoffs then the Bears would have a 0.0000000% chance at making the Super Bowl.
If Daniels unspectacular conservative play could help the Bears make the playoffs with the way the defense was playing, the Bears would then have a 16.66666666% chance at a Super Bowl.
Neither scenario did he say switching to Daniels would get the Bears to a Super Bowl...just that if the Bears were in playoff contention and Daniels conservative play could insure a playoff seed, then the Bears would have a shot at a Super Bowl.
Again you are trying to hard to prove mick wrong
Noonthirtyjoe
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jul 22, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,765
- Liked Posts:
- 4,138
Way to go, next time just send him a PM.
U right. But that would not take the words out of his mouth and many heard him. You reap what you sow in this world and Bearmick has to stand by his comments. But I agree It's time to turn the page. Things blew up and I feel bad that I helped get the lynching started.
dbldrew
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 5,637
- Liked Posts:
- 2,402
AKA advocating for Chase
Highlighting "a shot" changes nothing
option A gives us 0 shot
Option B gives us "a shot"
gee i wonder which option im advocating for..
just stop you're looking foolish
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,135
- Liked Posts:
- 50,777
1. Bearmick doesn't have to stand by an opinion he had that he's revised, nobody has to do that.
2. There has been no lynching, just you and 3-4 others looking kinda ****ing stupid
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,135
- Liked Posts:
- 50,777
So you'd want option B, right?
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 37,894
- Liked Posts:
- 41,320
Whose lynching lol? Only person getting a lynching right now appears to be poor drew, from gpphat. When will the fanboys learn that these impotent call outs only backfire on them?
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 12,206
- Liked Posts:
- 11,525
- Location:
- Richmond, VA
My favorite teams
Again you keep leaving out the important fact that the Bears are in the playoff hunt with Trubisky continuing his awful play.
I understand why you keep leaving that part out, you are so dug in that if you admit that Trubisky continuing to play awful is the basis of his whole argument then you will look like a complete tard.
I am giving you an out, you can just say
dbldrew
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 5,637
- Liked Posts:
- 2,402
yes obviously.. its just with me option B would not be Chase like Mick spelled out.
My shot to win the Superbowl would let Trubisky develop. For me as I spelled out in that Theard is you let him develop and if he doesnt improve and doesnt look like he has what it takes you need to look for option B for next year.. But Chase is not an option for a superbowl run at all..
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 58,135
- Liked Posts:
- 50,777
Imagine telling someone they aren't a fan of the team they prefer seeing in a championship over watching horrible QB play ruin that chance.
dbldrew
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 5,637
- Liked Posts:
- 2,402
and you keep leaving out the fact in the hypothetical scenario of Mitch playing awful is awful Mitch= Chase Daniel
Calling for another bad QB to replace your current bad QB and expect a superbowl shot is beyond stupid, It was stupid then, its stupid now and you look stupid defending it..
Its not Like we have a seasoned Vet that is middle of the pack that could fill in here.. Chase has 1 fucking TD pass his entire career
The only option was to hope Mitch figured it out (thank god he did) Chase was never an option..
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 12,206
- Liked Posts:
- 11,525
- Location:
- Richmond, VA
My favorite teams
So you admit that mick never said that he would rather have Daniel over Trubisky, but that if playoffs were on the line he would rather see a conservative Daniels in at QB versus the (hypothetical) bad play of Trubisky?
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 37,894
- Liked Posts:
- 41,320
Disagree. Daniel isn't good but he knows this offense enough to run it competently. If Trubisky's play was still so bad that he was hurting the offense with his misses, putting the backup in in that specific scenario would be wise.
This is really a pointless argument that nobody wishes to have, that's still ongoing only because you've made such an ordeal out of it that you can't let it go.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 37,894
- Liked Posts:
- 41,320
Mods, please kill this thread.
dbldrew
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 5,637
- Liked Posts:
- 2,402
ok thanks, your advocating for Chase because he knows the system..
At least your letting people know why your advocating for him.. well done
- Status
Staff online NOW
-
BigfootCCS Enforcer