NFL

Ganging up on Grossman while Brady can do no wrong

11/25/06 in NFL   |   outstanding   |   respect

I am tired of the media's waffling on our young QB, Rex Grossman, in Chicago, while holding Tom Brady up as the greatest ever. Rex is not even close to Brady in terms of career accomplishment, so understand straight away that I am not making an argument for Rex is better than Brady here. What I am saying is that if you look at what they have done this year, you would come away with a different impression than what the media would filter down for you.

The media hailed Rex as potential league MVP for the first few weeks, and then sent him to the 5th circle of hell after a bad performance against Arizona. Tom Brady, on the other hand, is given a pass despite having about 30 players on his roster with multiple super bowl rings. I didn't hear anything about Good Tom and Bad Tom after his 0 TD, 4 INT performance a few weeks ago. Sure, that's partially because of his track record over the years. But just because Rex doesn't own rings does not mean he shouldn't get any rope.

Has Rex been a model of consistency? No. But he has been a solid QB overall. Compare Brady's stats with Grossman over the course of the year:

Yards: Grossman, 2218 - Brady 2298
Comp %: Grossman, 56.7% - Brady 59.7%
Yds/Att: Grossman, 7.11 - Brady, 6.86
TD/INT: Grossman, 18/11 - Brady 19/9
QB Rating: Grossman, 83.5 - Brady 88.1

There's not some tremendous difference in those lines. Before the season, the biggest question mark going into Bears camp was what was going to happen at the receiver position (there never was any doubt Thomas Jones was the #1 back). Moose was coming off a subpar year after singing a big contract. Mark Bradley, last year's #2, was trying to return from his second torn ACL. Bernard Berrian spent the last two years struggling to stay healthy and distinguish himself on the field. And Rasheid Davis became the next in line, despite being a converted CFL cornerback.

An ESPN reporter recently asked Grossman, "How does it feel when you hear that everybody thinks Rex Grossman is this team's weak link?" And while putting all the blame for the Bears' troubles on Rex, the media is quick to trot out excuses on behalf of Tom.

This week, the Chicago Tribune is writing articles about how many threats the Bears have in their wideout core. Last I checked, it was the same group we had before the season started.

Can we get a ruling here? The Bears are 9-1, best in the league. They won two straight weeks in New York. I am looking forward to Sunday to see what happens. At least is an opportunity or the Rex to shut up the wafflers.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

11/26/06   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

One of the best defense-caused INT's I've ever seen, was the one that Ben Watson caught, and he got popped hard by the defender, and the ball flew out, right into the arms of Charles Tillman, if I remember correctly. But a few of Rex's INT's were definitely due to poor placement. I know I'm only parroting the announcers here, but they got it right. They were on target, but he's hitting the receivers on the wrong side of their body, and letting the defenders in too close.

11/26/06   |   outstanding

(Edited by outstanding)

i should add that brady is a better qb than grossman, which i said from the start. again, what i am tired of is the media claiming him a god and a devil and back and back again within weeks. look, he is a good qb--not the greatest, not the worst, young, and not seasoned. however, he has talent and is better than the qb's for a lot of other teams in this league. the bears can win with him.

what's funny is that the biggest play brady made today was not with his arm, but with his hips--deking urlacher for an uber-important first down.

while i am talking about this game, i am wondering if both joe the idiot buck and troy i used to respect him aikman had money on the pats today. ridiculous how slanted their call was. the officials missed a few pass int penalties agains the pats early, and then when they were finally flagged for it late in the game, the crew was ready to credit the officials with any bear comeback.....

11/26/06   |   outstanding

Pat wrote:

And...after all this, I think we just saw why Brady gets a pass, and Grossman is "ganged up on."

 

On a day when both of them played relatively badly, Brady was still more consistent by far. Rex literally threw the game away.

tell you what, the first 2 ints from grossman and brady's pair were both a result of the defense. rex's final int was horrid. but the largest error was lovie smith not goign for the TD on 4th and short with 3 minutes left. that is inexcusable. in a game where points are at a premium and turnovers are plentiful, YOU HAVE TO GO FOR IT. come on, lovie, go for it.

11/26/06   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

And...after all this, I think we just saw why Brady gets a pass, and Grossman is "ganged up on."

 

On a day when both of them played relatively badly, Brady was still more consistent by far. Rex literally threw the game away.

11/26/06   |   blipper21

cubhawk57 wrote:
I believe you read that wrong. Before the season, the media were DOWN on the recieving corps. Now the media is saying their great. Outstanding is pointing out the fact that the media, in their infinite wisdom, doesn't know squat when it comes down to it. I pulled the reciever card on bostonrules54. And all I did was point out the fact that the Pats got cheap and didn't retain Branch. That's nobody's fault but the Pats. I'm still not sold on the Bears recievers. Moose has done okay, Berrian was hurt once again, Gage is still inconsistent, Davis does well when he catches the ball and the one bright spot is the emergence of Desmond Clark at TE.

I may have read that wrong, but I don't think I did. I know the point is that they were DOWN on the receiver corps before the season; it's that very point that is convenient for someone who (at least to an extent) is coming to Grossman's defense. In other words, those speaking on Grossman's behalf can say, "Look how well (relatively) Grossman has done with a receiver corps that everyone initially thought was suspect." or "Don't put all the blame on Grossman; remember what we thought about his receivers going into the season?"

11/26/06   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

cubhawk57 wrote:
I believe you read that wrong. Before the season, the media were DOWN on the recieving corps. Now the media is saying their great. Outstanding is pointing out the fact that the media, in their infinite wisdom, doesn't know squat when it comes down to it. I pulled the reciever card on bostonrules54. And all I did was point out the fact that the Pats got cheap and didn't retain Branch. That's nobody's fault but the Pats. I'm still not sold on the Bears recievers. Moose has done okay, Berrian was hurt once again, Gage is still inconsistent, Davis does well when he catches the ball and the one bright spot is the emergence of Desmond Clark at TE.

Right...but how can you blame that on Brady? He lobbied hard with management to keep Branch and the others. Sure, the Patriots got rid of them anyway. But I certainly think it's legitimate to keep that in mind, when Brady's #1 receivers have been disappearing every year.

11/26/06   |   cubhawk57

blipper21 wrote:
But he was responding to the origingal post in which outstanding is "pulling the receiver card" in favor of the Bears. With as uncertain as the Chicago WR outlook may have been at season's start, I'm not sure that is was more uncertain than New England's.

I believe you read that wrong. Before the season, the media were DOWN on the recieving corps. Now the media is saying their great. Outstanding is pointing out the fact that the media, in their infinite wisdom, doesn't know squat when it comes down to it. I pulled the reciever card on bostonrules54. And all I did was point out the fact that the Pats got cheap and didn't retain Branch. That's nobody's fault but the Pats. I'm still not sold on the Bears recievers. Moose has done okay, Berrian was hurt once again, Gage is still inconsistent, Davis does well when he catches the ball and the one bright spot is the emergence of Desmond Clark at TE.

11/26/06   |   blipper21

outstanding wrote:
uh oh, eballplya pulled out the "i can..." card. look, rex hasn't proven himself a super bowl winner yet, but he hasn't had much of an opportunity yet. it wasn't rex that lost last year's bears playoff game. it was the defense. rex did pretty well, especially considering he was out most of the year. this could very well be the year he and the bears break through, especially in a weak nfc. to say he did poorly against the giants is to say you did not watch the second half. to say he padded his stats against the vikes is to say you did not watch that game at all. rex played poorly against he vikes, and did what the coaches asked of him in the giants game. ultimately, the measure of a qb is wins and super bowl wins. rex is getting better and better in the wins category, sunday will be a great matchup, and 2007 may be his first SB win. we shall see. i haven't had the rex kool-aid; i am just asking the media to be a little less polarized.
(Edited by blipper21)

While I think there can be a tendancy to come to conclusions too quickly, waffling performance leads to waffling opinions. You acknowledged yourself that Grossman has not been the model of consistency; with the "waffling" idea, it isn't about just calling him "good" or "bad", it's about the consistency or lack thereof in his play.

Frankly, the Grossman of the first five weeks and the Grossman since then have been two different quarterbacks. The first Grossman had a single-game QB rating of 98+ (which is pretty good) four out of five times. It's no wonder people were talking about him for MVP at that point (especially considering the Bears' record). Since then, his qb ratings have been 10.2, 137.4, 36.8, 105.7, and 81.4. That's kind of a roller coaster ride.  Is it surprising that MVP talk has died down after his great start?

In terms of comparison to Brady, while those who make quick judgments need to understand that there's not a whole lot of data for judging Grossman, it also needs to be understood that opinion about Brady is going to be more stable. This is not just because of his Super Bowl rings, but also because there's a bigger pool of data for judging him, so one bad game won't affect opinions about him as much.

Even this year, Brady has been more consistent which, again, is what the waffling issue has in view. Grossman has had a qb rating of 100+ five times and a rating below 70 three times. Brady has been over 100 three times and below 70 just once. With him, you have a clearer idea of what you're getting.

11/26/06   |   blipper21

cubhawk57 wrote:
Pulling out the reciever card is bullcrap. Just because the Pats got cheap and the Bears recievers have finally gelled doesn't mean crap to a QB comparison. Brady is a Super Bowl winner-period. Grossman is actually playing his first full year and I take a deep breath EVERY time he takes a hit. I'm more worried that he's going to end up being one of those oft-injured, woe-is-me type players then a championship QB right now. IF he's championship worthy, he'll help the Bears to the "promised land." If not, there's over 100 QB's that graduate college every year, I'm sure the Bears could find another. But until then, Grossman is the leader and as long as Lovie trusts him, I do too.

But he was responding to the origingal post in which outstanding is "pulling the receiver card" in favor of the Bears. With as uncertain as the Chicago WR outlook may have been at season's start, I'm not sure that is was more uncertain than New England's.

11/26/06   |   cubhawk57

Pulling out the reciever card is bullcrap. Just because the Pats got cheap and the Bears recievers have finally gelled doesn't mean crap to a QB comparison. Brady is a Super Bowl winner-period. Grossman is actually playing his first full year and I take a deep breath EVERY time he takes a hit. I'm more worried that he's going to end up being one of those oft-injured, woe-is-me type players then a championship QB right now. IF he's championship worthy, he'll help the Bears to the "promised land." If not, there's over 100 QB's that graduate college every year, I'm sure the Bears could find another. But until then, Grossman is the leader and as long as Lovie trusts him, I do too.

11/25/06   |   bostonrules54

But if you reliaze 2 of the Patriots Best Recievers are gone!!!!!

Dieon Branch and David Givens!!
Look at these Numbers

Name G Rec Yds Y/G Avg Lng YAC 1stD TD Fum FumL  
  Deion Branch 16 78 998 62.4 12.8 51 3.1 51 5 0 0  
  David Givens 13 59 738 56.8 12.5 40 3.9 32 2 0 0
The Next closest is Troy Brown who plays Special teams, Offence, and Defence!

Go to  This Page to see the whole stats!

11/25/06   |   outstanding

uh oh, eballplya pulled out the "i can..." card. look, rex hasn't proven himself a super bowl winner yet, but he hasn't had much of an opportunity yet. it wasn't rex that lost last year's bears playoff game. it was the defense. rex did pretty well, especially considering he was out most of the year. this could very well be the year he and the bears break through, especially in a weak nfc. to say he did poorly against the giants is to say you did not watch the second half. to say he padded his stats against the vikes is to say you did not watch that game at all. rex played poorly against he vikes, and did what the coaches asked of him in the giants game. ultimately, the measure of a qb is wins and super bowl wins. rex is getting better and better in the wins category, sunday will be a great matchup, and 2007 may be his first SB win. we shall see. i haven't had the rex kool-aid; i am just asking the media to be a little less polarized.

11/25/06   |   BestofChicago   |   51 respect

Yeah Sexy Rexy is up there in stats but he did all of his damage against teams like the vikings, packers and lions. When he played a decent team like miami, Arizona??, Giants, he didnt do so well. I could throw for 300 yards against the lions! Basicly......

 

Tom Brady > Rex Grossman

11/25/06   |   Nate   |   128 respect

CriticalFanatic wrote:
Define harsh? I've called him unconsistent which is pretty close to dead on accurate. I also have serious doubts about Rex winning a big playoff game at this stage of his career.

Harsh? sure, if that means accurate.

I agree with you there, I don't think he is ready yet for a big play off game, maybe next year.  Consistancy will come with experience and he doesn't have a whole lot of that yet.

11/25/06   |   CriticalFanatic

wrote:

Nice writeup outstanding.  If you want to see one of Rex's harshest critics, look no farther than Critical Fanatic.

Define harsh? I've called him unconsistent which is pretty close to dead on accurate. I also have serious doubts about Rex winning a big playoff game at this stage of his career.

Harsh? sure, if that means accurate.

11/25/06   |   Nate   |   128 respect

You know I do agree with you that Rex isn't a bad QB, and maybe deserves a little more credit, but on the other hand, I can also agree with his critics.  The stats can be miss leading, in the fact that when he is good, he is great, when he is bad he is horrible.  You would need to look no further than the Arizona game and Miami game to see that.  However, he is a young QB, and I think he will do nothing but improve in the next few years, and if not this year he will take the Bears to the Super Bowl at some point.  He just needs to work on his consitancy.

11/25/06   |   outstanding

wrote:

Nice writeup outstanding.  If you want to see one of Rex's harshest critics, look no farther than Critical Fanatic.

thanks. i am not saying rex is a worldbeater (at least not yet), and i am not saying he is better than brady. he certainly has a lot to acomplish before that comparison can really even begin. but for this year as a whole, he has been about equal.

the chicago media-often reflecting our fans in general here--are quick to polarize. either our teams are the greatest or they are the worst. all hail rex, or start greise. people, there are more games to play, and rex has looked pretty darn good in most of his games.