Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=83746		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Peoria Matt [ Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
And what was said? Must have been spot on if they shooed him away.
Author:  Brick [ Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
It had to be. What are the odds that two people from Pittsburgh would be named Mike?
Author:  Frank Coztansa [ Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
COATCH is from PA.
Author:  bigfan [ Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
It had to be. What are the odds that two people from Pittsburgh would be named Mike?

12-1
Author:  Rod [ Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
bigfan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
It had to be. What are the odds that two people from Pittsburgh would be named Mike?

12-1


It's actually 1000-1. 12-1 is just the odds Mac got for the show pot.
Author:  IkeSouth [ Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
roadshow 10 seconds was gay as shit. why is it so bad? theres only one or two a day thats funny

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio-roads ... /response/

also, i dont think people realize there is no censorship...
Author:  pittmike [ Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
Lol no wasn't me I was at my kids bball game. Some fucker trying to punk me?
Author:  veganfan21 [ Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
If i recall correctly the call was about the Denver - Dallas game or something. Terry was trying to diminish McCown's stats against Dallas by saying Denver put up 51 against them in Dallas and never punted. I think this is a weak argument anyway because Denver scores on just about everyone, even KC. Dallas has a bad D, but since when did we judge QBs by the strength of the opposing teams' defenses? Bench McCown only if he gives you a reason to take him off the field, and not because of what Cutler can do in hypothetical situations.
Author:  Rod [ Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
veganfan21 wrote:
If i recall correctly the call was about the Denver - Dallas game or something. Terry was trying to diminish McCown's stats against Dallas by saying Denver put up 51 against them in Dallas and never punted. I think this is a weak argument anyway because Denver scores on just about everyone, even KC. Dallas has a bad D, but since when did we judge QBs by the strength of the opposing teams' defenses? Bench McCown only if he gives you a reason to take him off the field, and not because of what Cutler can do in hypothetical situations.


So basically, Terry was comparing McCown to Peyton Manning.
Author:  veganfan21 [ Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
If i recall correctly the call was about the Denver - Dallas game or something. Terry was trying to diminish McCown's stats against Dallas by saying Denver put up 51 against them in Dallas and never punted. I think this is a weak argument anyway because Denver scores on just about everyone, even KC. Dallas has a bad D, but since when did we judge QBs by the strength of the opposing teams' defenses? Bench McCown only if he gives you a reason to take him off the field, and not because of what Cutler can do in hypothetical situations.


So basically, Terry was comparing McCown to Peyton Manning.



:lol:

It was a weak argument, to say the least. I haven't been listening much, but it seems they've come down pretty strong on the side of starting Cutler. I am somewhat surprised given the, albeit inconsistent, rationalist bent of the show. What is rational about benching McCown at this point? All arguments for Cutler are based on what he can do in situations that may or may not occur. It's different if McCown is putting up these numbers while leading the Bears to a 2-5 record or something, but they've more or less been in every game with McCown, just like they were with Cutler. I don't see a reason for benching him.
Author:  Rod [ Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: PITTMIKE, WAS THAT YOU?
Well, anyone who has listened to B&b since Cutler came to the Bears knows that in the beginning they spoke of this guy like he was some all-timer. There weren't enough superlatives for the great Jay Cutler. Callers that asked what he had ever done were summarily dismissed or eviscerated on air depending upon the mood of li'l danny. That has only slightly been tempered as Cutler has proven himself time and time again to be very ordinary as an NFL quarterback. They still aren't ready to suggest that perhaps the Bears should continue to play the guy who "came off a high school field" despite his giant QB rating.

It's similar to their progression on Carmelo Anthony. In fact, Jay Cutler may be the football version of Carmelo Anthony. At one time the B&b position on Anthony was that he was a bonafide superstar and if you disagreed you were "basketball retarded". You don't hear that so much anymore. Though part of that could be because Goff is in Atlanta.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/