I mean that Id rather have Troy Aikman come back from the booth than McCown. Screw the system the Bears need someone who can throw a pass and wont turn the ball over.

 

McCown has some unbelievable numbers.

 

47 games played, 40 interceptions, 30 fumbles.

 

Heres another stat, last time he played was 2009. Last time he threw more than 10 passes, 2007.

 

Its just really not a good plan.

Hell no. If for no other reason than I don't want to see Bears Favre jerseys somewhere out there the rest of my life.

They need to give David Garrard a call, I think hes the only guy out there that gives you a chance to still make the playoffs..which were not out of just yet...Hes had success with worse WR than ours

They need to give David Garrard a call, I think hes the only guy out there that gives you a chance to still make the playoffs..which were not out of just yet...Hes had success with worse WR than ours

He's unavailable...he had back surgery or something.

He's unavailable...he had back surgery or something.

 

 

whoops didnt know about that...Another guy that id like to see brought in is Troy Smith, I think hes got a little tim tebow in em

 

edit :while theyre at it he can bring back his UFL teammate Garret Wolfe too.

Edited December 6, 201114 yr by 2nd_city_saint787

I'd consider McNabb long before Favre.

I'd consider slicing my penis up at the deli in a meat slicer and eating all the pieces before rooting for brett farve.

I'd consider slicing my penis up at the deli in a meat slicer and eating all the pieces before rooting for brett farve.

So you're saying you'd be against the signing?

So you're saying you'd be against the signing?

 

I think he was saying that the pastrami sandwich is to die for

I'd consider slicing my penis up at the deli in a meat slicer and eating all the pieces before rooting for brett farve.

 

Poetry.

Sadly, I am now craving deli meat.

Poetry.

 

He says that now, but if did come back and won the Superbowl with the Bears, he'd be the first in line buying his f***ing jersey and slobbing his knob. I heard this same crap out of the Vikings fan base before Favre went there, too.

 

I'm sorry but winning is winning. It's not your money they'd be spending, so why do you care? Anyone on this board pretending they'd rather lose than have Favre win is a moron, and it's what classifies you as a "Da Bers" fan, versus a Chicago Bears fan.

He says that now, but if did come back and won the Superbowl with the Bears, he'd be the first in line buying his f***ing jersey and slobbing his knob. I heard this same crap out of the Vikings fan base before Favre went there, too.

 

I'm sorry but winning is winning. It's not your money they'd be spending, so why do you care? Anyone on this board pretending they'd rather lose than have Favre win is a moron, and it's what classifies you as a "Da Bers" fan, versus a Chicago Bears fan.

 

They're not winning either way. It's far too late in the season for him to make a difference, let alone lead them to a Super Bowl. And I'm hardly a Bears fan at all, let alone a "Da Bears" fan. I hate those people.

Sadly, I am now craving deli meat.

 

He says that now, but if did come back and won the Superbowl with the Bears, he'd be the first in line buying his f***ing jersey and slobbing his knob. I heard this same crap out of the Vikings fan base before Favre went there, too.

 

I'm sorry but winning is winning. It's not your money they'd be spending, so why do you care? Anyone on this board pretending they'd rather lose than have Favre win is a moron, and it's what classifies you as a "Da Bers" fan, versus a Chicago Bears fan.

 

The Bears aren't winning the Super Bowl, or even getting there, with Favre. The only chance the Bears have of reaching the Super Bowl this season is if Cutler and Forte are both back in time for the playoffs. If there is a good chance of that happening, then I have no problem bringing in Favre or McNabb to try and get the Bears into the playoffs, but does anyone think Favre would be happy becoming the backup QB at that point?

 

If there is little chance of getting Cutler and Forte back for the playoffs, then I hardly see the point of bringing anybody in just so the Bears can get plastered by the Saints in their first playoff game.

 

The Bears aren't winning the Super Bowl, or even getting there, with Favre. The only chance the Bears have of reaching the Super Bowl this season is if Cutler and Forte are both back in time for the playoffs. If there is a good chance of that happening, then I have no problem bringing in Favre or McNabb to try and get the Bears into the playoffs, but does anyone think Favre would be happy becoming the backup QB at that point?

 

If there is little chance of getting Cutler and Forte back for the playoffs, then I hardly see the point of bringing anybody in just so the Bears can get plastered by the Saints in their first playoff game.

 

I didn't say they'd win -- and that's beside the point. The Bears job, as a business/organization, is the attempt, at all times, to put the best product on the field that they can. I don't care if Favre gives the Bears a 1% or 25% better chance to win the Superbowl than what they have right now, any increase in chance and I think it's what they should do.

 

OR, they should stop saying they're in the business of putting the best product on the field that they can.

 

Do I think Favre with the bears would mean they win the Superbowl? No. Do I think they have a better shot, regardless of how much of a long shot it is, with Favre? Yes.

 

I also like to keep in mind that football, is nothing more than real-time entertainment. And f*** all, but Favre is entertaining as hell on that field, regardless of who he plays for. Even if it means losing -- I'd ENJOY watching them lose with Favre more than watching them lose with the crap they have left over in the wake of Cutlers injury. The Bears are in the business of entertaining people. What they did last week...that wasn't entertainment for anyone other than KC.

 

And that is all.

Edited December 6, 201114 yr by Y2HH

I guess that's where we disagree, because if Cutler and Forte aren't going to be back, I'd prefer a 7-9 record and a better draft pick than a 9-7 record and a first round blowout at New Orleans.

I guess that's where we disagree, because if Cutler and Forte aren't going to be back, I'd prefer a 7-9 record and a better draft pick than a 9-7 record and a first round blowout at New Orleans.

 

For what reason? The Bears are better in free agency than drafting. Once in a while the get lucky and accidentally draft someone good (and it's rare). So losing in order to get a better draft position doesn't mean much for the Bears.

 

I'd rather be entertained by what they have on the field today than care about a year from now, who the f*** knows, I may not be alive a year from now...so entertainment NOW!

I didn't say they'd win -- and that's beside the point. The Bears job, as a business/organization, is the attempt, at all times, to put the best product on the field that they can. I don't care if Favre gives the Bears a 1% or 25% better chance to win the Superbowl than what they have right now, any increase in chance and I think it's what they should do.

 

OR, they should stop saying they're in the business of putting the best product on the field that they can.

 

Do I think Favre with the bears would mean they win the Superbowl? No. Do I think they have a better shot, regardless of how much of a long shot it is, with Favre? Yes.

 

I also like to keep in mind that football, is nothing more than real-time entertainment. And f*** all, but Favre is entertaining as hell on that field, regardless of who he plays for. Even if it means losing -- I'd ENJOY watching them lose with Favre more than watching them lose with the crap they have left over in the wake of Cutlers injury. The Bears are in the business of entertaining people. What they did last week...that wasn't entertainment for anyone other than KC.

 

And that is all.

One which was already brought up there is a higher draft pick, which in turn could help you win.

 

However you missed the boat on what the Bears job is. The Bears job, as a business/organization, is to make money. Yes, winning helps make money, that's a huge part of it. But increasing your chances (if you can even prove that) by 1% by getting Favre could piss off fans, which could possibly cost you money in the long run.

 

BTW, Favre is no longer entertaining on the field, unless you find bad quarterbacking entertaining. I don't see what fun you'd get watching them lose with Favre over without Favre. Who the f*** cares? That really adds to your enjoyment?

 

You could also put a girl at QB next week and call it more entertaining than last week's game. Doesn't mean it's a move that should be made because it's somehow "more entertaining."

Edited December 7, 201114 yr by IlliniKrush

I don't see what fun you'd get watching them lose with Favre over without Favre. Who the f*** cares? That really adds to your enjoyment?

 

Well, for me, I always enjoy seeing Favre getting pounded into the ground, and for once it would be a good thing that the offensive line sucks.

 

But seriously, I agree that there's nothing to gain from getting Favre.

Edited December 7, 201114 yr by HickoryHuskers

One which was already brought up there is a higher draft pick, which in turn could help you win.

 

However you missed the boat on what the Bears job is. The Bears job, as a business/organization, is to make money. Yes, winning helps make money, that's a huge part of it. But increasing your chances (if you can even prove that) by 1% by getting Favre could piss off fans, which could possibly cost you money in the long run.

 

BTW, Favre is no longer entertaining on the field, unless you find bad quarterbacking entertaining. I don't see what fun you'd get watching them lose with Favre over without Favre. Who the f*** cares? That really adds to your enjoyment?

 

You could also put a girl at QB next week and call it more entertaining than last week's game. Doesn't mean it's a move that should be made because it's somehow "more entertaining."

 

Seriously, when is the last time the Bears didn't sell out a game?

Seriously, when is the last time the Bears didn't sell out a game?

 

That would be never.

Seriously, when is the last time the Bears didn't sell out a game?

1983

Edited December 7, 201114 yr by Steve9347

1983

 

Combine that with the massive waiting list for Bears tickets, I'm not too worried about the fans leaving the Bears in droves over a Favre signing.

One which was already brought up there is a higher draft pick, which in turn could help you win.

 

However you missed the boat on what the Bears job is. The Bears job, as a business/organization, is to make money. Yes, winning helps make money, that's a huge part of it. But increasing your chances (if you can even prove that) by 1% by getting Favre could piss off fans, which could possibly cost you money in the long run.

 

BTW, Favre is no longer entertaining on the field, unless you find bad quarterbacking entertaining. I don't see what fun you'd get watching them lose with Favre over without Favre. Who the f*** cares? That really adds to your enjoyment?

 

You could also put a girl at QB next week and call it more entertaining than last week's game. Doesn't mean it's a move that should be made because it's somehow "more entertaining."

Are you kidding with this bulls***?

 

GMAFB. This is you completely talking out of your ass.