No sir, I am not. The score of 142 on the last IQ test I took indicates that I am a "genius," which is considerably higher than "idiot" on the intelligence scale. Would you like me to share my ACT and SAT scores? They put me in the top 1 percentile of the general population, intelligence wise, as well.
How does calling me an idiot strengthen your argument? If your argument is valid, calling me an idiot does not make it any more so. And if your argument is fallacious (that means untrue), as I will show it be, no amount of childish name calling will make it any less so. That you open your argument with "You're an idiot," shows a high level of immaturity and a low level of ability to reason and to state your opinions in a clear concise and coherent manner. But far be from me to question your intelligence, simply because I disagree with your conclusion.
That would be childish.
The writer is not showing disrespect for the Bears defense he is simply pointing out there is a much better chance that Aaron Rodgers could tie the game with 90 seconds of clock to work with rather than taking the chance of blocking the field goal attempt.
In my opinion the writer is doing
exactly that. (showing disrespect.) He states that allowing the Bears to score a touchdown "would have given Chicago a 24-17 lead, but it also would have given Aaron Rodgers about a minute and a half to drive the Packers down the field for a game-tying touchdown.
Conservatively speaking, there might have been a 20% chance for success,
quite possibly more." The wording indicates he doesn't think the Bears could stop the Packers. While he admits that his plan would have up to an 80% of failing he feels that is better than allowing the Bears to run out the clock and kick a field goal with 4 seconds left which he estimates is 99% likely to fail. Ignoring the fact that his numbers are fabricated out of thin air and likely far from accurate for the moment, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He fails to take into account several factors. First, the Packers defense had several downs to try to force a fumble or possibly intercept the ball which would have ended the game right there with a Packers victory. Given Cutler's past propensity to make bad decisions, especially in goal line situations, there was a reasonably high chance this would have happened. Unfortunately for them, it didn't.
Second, of the Packers 9 offensive drives, only two ended in a touchdown. Two of those drives also ended in a turnover. While they were moving the ball with ease, they were having difficulty getting it into the end zone. There is no good reason to believe that would have changed.
Third, a Packer's touchdown would have required a 2 point conversion to win (which is about 50/50 at best) or an extra point to tie and force overtime. I already covered, in an earlier post the several ways this could have backfired on the Packers.
You seem to forget Rodgers was moving the ball at will most of the game and if James Jones did not fumble the ball we might not be having this conversation.
I didn't forget. They were moving the ball. They just weren't
scoring which is pretty much the whole point. We also wouldn't be having this conversation if they hadn't racked up 18 penalties, but they did.
Would you honestly rather take the chance of blocking a chip shot field goal attempt or give Aaron Rodgers 90 seconds to try and drive the field for the tie.
I like the third option, which would have been forcing a turnover.
I mean Shaun Hill almost did the same thing in week 1 against us and Aaron Rodgers is only like 100000xs better.
Shaun hill wasn't going up against the Bears defense so this argument is irrelevant. Besides he
failed. And I doubt Rodgers is 100 thousand times better than Hill. He might be ten times better but I think even that is an exaggeration.
There are at least 18 good reasons (penalties) why the Packers put the Bears in position to win this game. Stopping them from scoring a touchdown is not one of them.