BEARS GET CUTLER!!!

[witesoxfan]

Actually I wouldnt for two reasons.

 

 

1. The Bucs have a lot of holes on defense that need to be addressed before giving up two first rounders for a QB.

 

2. I'm not a fan of Cutler. Sure he passed for a lot of yards but he doesnt have a good TD/INT ratio and I dont think he has the intangibles to be a winner. Plus he finished 3rd in yards passing but 16th in QB rating. He was the only QB to be in the top 5 for yards and not be in the top 6 for QB rating.

 

Cutler did that in his 2nd full season as a starting QB, and in his 3rd year in the league. I don't think it's far-fetched to think that he will improve, even if his raw numbers (notably touchdowns and yards) don't increase.

 

In regards to the QB rating, 86 is still pretty damn good, and it is 2 points away from being 11th in the league. Keep in mind too that 4 of those players ahead of him - Matt Schaub, Jeff Garcia, Shaun Hill, and Seneca Wallace - all put up those numbers in 12 games or fewer, whereas Cutler played the full 16 game season. You can throw Romo in there too if you want, as he missed 3 games too, which is still significant (and probably one of the reasons the Cowboys missed the playoffs).

 

I also think his QB rating is a little flawed simply because of how much Denver threw the ball. The only quarterback to throw the ball more was Drew Brees, and that's a testament to how poor Denver's running game really was (even if they averaged 4.8 yards a carry). They had 6 backs (including Cutler himself) carry the ball 35 or more times last year, and none of them carried it more than 76 times. If you don't have a consistent back, you shouldn't expect a consistent running game, and thus you'll have to pass. So long as Forte stays healthy and Cutler doesn't have to throw the ball 615 times, I think his QB rating will come up, probably to around the 90 range.

 

It's really hard to gauge how good Cutler actually is, and I think this season will be a test of that. Cutler is still one of the most talented quarterbacks in the league and he is going to make the Bears receiving corps better simply because of his presence. He's a hell of an upgrade from anything they've had in the past 20 years.

Edited April 3, 2009 by witesoxfan

[Y2HH]

Cutler did that in his 2nd full season as a starting QB, and in his 3rd year in the league. I don't think it's far-fetched to think that he will improve, even if his raw numbers (notably touchdowns and yards) don't increase.

 

In regards to the QB rating, 86 is still pretty damn good, and it is 2 points away from being 11th in the league. Keep in mind too that 4 of those players ahead of him - Matt Schaub, Jeff Garcia, Shaun Hill, and Seneca Wallace - all put up those numbers in 12 games or fewer, whereas Cutler played the full 16 game season. You can throw Romo in there too if you want, as he missed 3 games too, which is still significant (and probably one of the reasons the Cowboys missed the playoffs).

 

I also think his QB rating is a little flawed simply because of how much Denver threw the ball. The only quarterback to throw the ball more was Drew Brees, and that's a testament to how poor Denver's running game really was (even if they averaged 4.8 yards a carry). They had 6 backs (including Cutler himself) carry the ball 35 or more times last year, and none of them carried it more than 76 times. If you don't have a consistent back, you shouldn't expect a consistent running game, and thus you'll have to pass. So long as Forte stays healthy and Cutler doesn't have to throw the ball 615 times, I think his QB rating will come up, probably to around the 90 range.

 

It's really hard to gauge how good Cutler actually is, and I think this season will be a test of that. Cutler is still one of the most talented quarterbacks in the league and he is going to make the Bears receiving corps better simply because of his presence. He's a hell of an upgrade from anything they've had in the past 20 years.

 

1) 86 is NOT a "pretty good" QB rating for a guy that cost you a serviceable QB, 2 first round picks and a 3rd round pick. Yes, Cutler is better than Orton, but for what you gave up, you got robbed as far as I'm concerned.

 

2) Cutler is going to make the Bears receiving corps better?! What receiving corps? This made me laugh. The Bears receivers are OK at best, and Cutler isn't going to make them much better, if at all. Receiving corps? More like receiving CORPSE.

 

3) Judging a QB with or without a running game is a tricky situation -- Favre had no running for the first six+ games two years ago (his final season on the Packers), and posted INSANE statistics despite opposing defenses knowing he was passing. That has a lot to do with your o-line and your receivers, and again, I fall back on the Bears receivers being an absolute joke...all of them.

 

Bottom line, IMO, Cutler is an upgrade for the Bears -- he's just not nearly as much of an upgrade as Bear nation is trying to make it out to be. You can tell how QB starved this town is when people rejoice about the greatness that is Cutler, when he's not even near being great. As for his "pro-bowl" season, also a joke...with statistics like that, it means he made the pro-bowl because of lack of QB talent in his conference, not because he actually belonged there.

[daa84]

Giving JA some credit here for sure.....going into last year....i looked at the draft and was like...hell, we need help everywhere on offense, we needed a RB, WR (or 2), a tackle, and still that elusive QB

 

flashforward one year, and we have Cutler, Forte, Pace, Williams, and a #2/3 WR in hester. In the span of one year, we've filled all of those spots with legit 1st round talent (to go with a 1st round TE in Olsen), with the exception of WR. WR is still a big hole...but its much easier to fill just that 1 spot than the 4 or 5 spots we had to fill a year ago.

 

The signing of Pace can't go unmentioned either. Ya know how hawk always says, when your closer goes down it throws your whole pen out of whack, and getting him back makes every other spot in your pen better? Pace is the same way. RT looks so much better because we have 2 options in Williams and Shaffer. Guard gets better because we have Omiyale to compete with Garza and Beekman, instead of being stuck at RT. The entire line is strengthened significantly by that signing IMO. I absolutely love the look of this offense outside of the WR right now. We are enormous up front with roadgrating O lineman (outside of Williams) and a RB who is excellent in pass protection to help Jay out.

Edited April 3, 2009 by daa84

[NorthSideSox72]

Me as well...and now I am really hopin I get to party with him down in LODO (lower denver, next to Coors)

LoDo = Lower Downtown, not Lower Denver (which would be LoDe).

 

[whitesoxfan101]

I couldn't possibly be more surprised that this deal got done, as is made obvious by my comments throughout the process. When I said the Bears didn't have the ammo to make this deal, it was under the false assumption that Jerry Angelo didn't have the balls to make an offer like this. They definitely overpaid and this deal isn't a sure thing to work, but Jerry deserves credit for having the balls to do this and I think it's a risk worth it and necessary to take considering the opportunity presented itself. This trade should work out for both teams if Denver is smart, although I think Orton is nothing more than a stopgap for them, and I wouldn't be surprised if they use their 2 first rounders to trade up and get Mark Sanchez.

 

I have ZERO concern that Kyle Orton was given up on, and at the end of the day this trade will be remembered based on what weapons the Bears get to help Jay and keep him happy (they still have THE WORST WR corps in the NFL) and what the Broncos do with those two 1st round picks (although with how Jerry Angelo has drafted in the 1st round, whose to say he wouldn't have screwed up those picks anyways?) I commend the Bears for doing this, regardless of how it works out, because Jay Cutler is the most talented QB this franchise has had in about 60 years, and many people *raises hand* thought it would be a cold day in hell before they made a move like this.

Edited April 3, 2009 by whitesoxfan101

[Y2HH]

I commend the Bears for doing this, regardless of how it works out, because Jay Cutler is the most talented QB this franchise has had in about 60 years.

 

That's what's so sad about it and why it appears to be such a blockbuster deal. In comparison to what Chicago normally has to deal with, Cutler is heads and tails better, but he's still far from great (so far, but he at least has the tools to become great). I think this is somewhat an absolved feeling for Bears fans who were secretly envious of the Favre type gunslinger all these years, that they now, too, finally have themselves a gunslinger!

[whitesoxfan101]

That's what's so sad about it and why it appears to be such a blockbuster deal. In comparison to what Chicago normally has to deal with, Cutler is heads and tails better, but he's still far from great (so far, but he at least has the tools to become great). I think this is somewhat an absolved feeling for Bears fans who were secretly envious of the Favre type gunslinger all these years, that they now, too, finally have themselves a gunslinger!

 

In my opinion, Cutler is nowhere near as good as he's capable of being yet, which is the only reason I don't say this is a bad deal. I think Cutler is going to get noticeably better, especially if the Bears surround him with 2 or 3 talented WR's, although we'll see about that part. If Cutler were as good as he'll ever get right now, I would say the Bears overpaid and the deal isn't worth the risk. But he's only in his mid 20's and I think he's going to definitely get better.

[Steve9347]

Cutler 2008: 8 games of 300+ yards passing

Bears Franchise Single Season Record: 4 games of 300+ yards passing

 

IMMEDIATELY THE BEST QB IN FRANCHISE HISTORY... 25 year old Pro Bowl Quarterbacks just don't come available. For a team that has stockpiled picks for this year, it was perfect.

 

And Carl, let's be real. You said the Broncos won the trade, which is just blatantly incorrect. The Denver Broncos got fair value for Cutler, sure, but they did not win this trade. Trading a 25 year old guy of Cutler's calibre is idiotic. Ask them how Jake "The Snake" was working out, or Brian Griese for that matter.

 

The Broncos have been spoiled at the position with Elway, and then got Cutler and thought it was easy. Enjoy Orton, or Sanchez, or whatever bust you're going to pick. Not many make it and to assume that you'll easily plug the hole is laughable.

 

Big win for the Bears, as they finally solved a problem that has haunted them for 60 years.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Steve9347

[DBAHO]

Wow, never thought I'd see Angelo and the Bears have the balls to actually pull off a move like this.

 

And really, the bears have brought in a QB who should fit them perfectly. Cutler's shown that he can throw well in not so ideal conditions at Mile High Stadium, so throwing at Soldier Field shouldn't cause many issues for him.

 

The Bears did well bringing in Orlando Pace also, although I have doubts on whether Chris Williams is going to be able to make it at RT (otherwise keep him at LT, because Pace is injury prone).

 

Hester will be Cutler's version of Eddie Royal, while Earl Bennett has a decent chance to do something now. I would still look at bringing in a guy like Torry Holt though if the price was right.

 

Either way, with the Vikings upgrading at QB, the Packers not going to be as bad as they were last season, the Bears needed to upgrade if they wanted to be a playoff contender.

 

With Cutler in now, they can definitely do that.

[Soxbadger]

3) Judging a QB with or without a running game is a tricky situation -- Favre had no running for the first six+ games two years ago (his final season on the Packers), and posted INSANE statistics despite opposing defenses knowing he was passing. That has a lot to do with your o-line and your receivers, and again, I fall back on the Bears receivers being an absolute joke...all of them.

 

YEAR TEAM G CMP ATT PCT YDS AVG TD LNG INT RAT

 

Farve 2007 GNB 16 356 535 66.5 4155 7.8 28 82 15 95.7

 

Cutler 2008 DEN 16 384 616 62.3 4526 7.3 25 93 18 86.0

 

 

So 3 more tds and 3 less ints make Farve's stats "insane", where as Cutler is not even "pretty good" with a rating of 86.

 

Furthermore, in Farve's first 3 seasons as a starting QB he posted 85.3, 72.2 and 90.7 qb rating.

 

Cutler on the other hand posted 88.5, 88.1 and 86.0.

 

In fact Farve's career passer rating is 85.4

 

Elways career passer rating is 79.9 and he did not put a rating over 85 until his 10th season in the league.

 

Jim Kelly's career passer rating is 84.4

 

Troy Aikman's career passer rating is 81.6

 

So lets see the type of QB's with higher career passer ratings:

 

Joe Montana career passer rating of 92.3, in Montana's first 3 seasons he put up 87.8, 88.4 and 88.0

 

Dan Marino career passer rating 86.4, Marino's first 3 seasons 96, 108.9 and 84.1

 

Steve Young career rating 96.8, Young's first season with TB 65.5, Young with 49ers at the age of 30 put up 101.8 and 107 ratings.

 

Peyton Manning career rating 94.7, first 3 seasons 71.2, 90.7 and 94.7.

 

Tom Brady career rating 92.9, first 3 seasons 86.5, 85.7 and 85.9

 

As of now Cutler's career rating is 87.1, through 3 seasons that means only Marino and Young had a significantly better QB ratings. Montana, Brady and Favre had very similar ratings to Cutler.

 

So Im not sure how an 86 qb rating is not even pretty good when there are multiple HOF Qb's who have lower career ratings.

 

Unless the HOF isnt very good?

[DABearSoX]

LoDo = Lower Downtown, not Lower Denver (which would be LoDe).

 

ha, thanks ass....

 

 

[iamshack]

1) 86 is NOT a "pretty good" QB rating for a guy that cost you a serviceable QB, 2 first round picks and a 3rd round pick. Yes, Cutler is better than Orton, but for what you gave up, you got robbed as far as I'm concerned.

 

2) Cutler is going to make the Bears receiving corps better?! What receiving corps? This made me laugh. The Bears receivers are OK at best, and Cutler isn't going to make them much better, if at all. Receiving corps? More like receiving CORPSE.

 

3) Judging a QB with or without a running game is a tricky situation -- Favre had no running for the first six+ games two years ago (his final season on the Packers), and posted INSANE statistics despite opposing defenses knowing he was passing. That has a lot to do with your o-line and your receivers, and again, I fall back on the Bears receivers being an absolute joke...all of them.

 

Bottom line, IMO, Cutler is an upgrade for the Bears -- he's just not nearly as much of an upgrade as Bear nation is trying to make it out to be. You can tell how QB starved this town is when people rejoice about the greatness that is Cutler, when he's not even near being great. As for his "pro-bowl" season, also a joke...with statistics like that, it means he made the pro-bowl because of lack of QB talent in his conference, not because he actually belonged there.

 

I think it's pretty silly to judge the QB rating considering he has had no defense and had to try and do things on offense which he would never have had to do if he had a solid defense. I expect the rating to rise somewhat dramatically now that he doesn't feel as though he has to score every drive...

[Y2HH]

YEAR TEAM G CMP ATT PCT YDS AVG TD LNG INT RAT

 

Farve 2007 GNB 16 356 535 66.5 4155 7.8 28 82 15 95.7

 

Cutler 2008 DEN 16 384 616 62.3 4526 7.3 25 93 18 86.0

 

 

So 3 more tds and 3 less ints make Farve's stats "insane", where as Cutler is not even "pretty good" with a rating of 86.

 

Furthermore, in Farve's first 3 seasons as a starting QB he posted 85.3, 72.2 and 90.7 qb rating.

 

Cutler on the other hand posted 88.5, 88.1 and 86.0.

 

In fact Farve's career passer rating is 85.4

 

Elways career passer rating is 79.9 and he did not put a rating over 85 until his 10th season in the league.

 

Jim Kelly's career passer rating is 84.4

 

Troy Aikman's career passer rating is 81.6

 

So lets see the type of QB's with higher career passer ratings:

 

Joe Montana career passer rating of 92.3, in Montana's first 3 seasons he put up 87.8, 88.4 and 88.0

 

Dan Marino career passer rating 86.4, Marino's first 3 seasons 96, 108.9 and 84.1

 

Steve Young career rating 96.8, Young's first season with TB 65.5, Young with 49ers at the age of 30 put up 101.8 and 107 ratings.

 

Peyton Manning career rating 94.7, first 3 seasons 71.2, 90.7 and 94.7.

 

Tom Brady career rating 92.9, first 3 seasons 86.5, 85.7 and 85.9

 

As of now Cutler's career rating is 87.1, through 3 seasons that means only Marino and Young had a significantly better QB ratings. Montana, Brady and Favre had very similar ratings to Cutler.

 

So Im not sure how an 86 qb rating is not even pretty good when there are multiple HOF Qb's who have lower career ratings.

 

Unless the HOF isnt very good?

 

Since you tried, unsuccessfully, to take what I was trying to say out of context allow me to correct you. I meant nothing more than judging a QB on having running backs is a tricky situation depending on many other factors, such as WR's and Oline. I said nothing more.

 

Now, since you wanted to compare Cutler to Favre, fine...let's do it. This should be easy.

 

You said: So 3 more tds and 3 less ints make Farve's stats "insane", where as Cutler is not even "pretty good" with a rating of 86.

 

I say: Favre was 38 years old when he did that. Also, I never said Cutler wasn't pretty good, I merely said what the Bears gave up to get "pretty good" should have gotten "great". Perhaps this was lost in translation, but I never meant it the way you took it.

 

You said: Furthermore, in Farve's first 3 seasons as a starting QB he posted 85.3, 72.2 and 90.7 qb rating. Cutler on the other hand posted 88.5, 88.1 and 86.0.

 

I say: So Favre regressed, went through a sophmore slump and rebounded huge. Cutler, on the other hand, regressed 3 straight years in a row.

 

You say: (This is where you show a boatload of "career passer ratings" from a bunch of guys who played 15 year careers in the NFL while trying to compare them to Cutler's current rating when he's played 3 years).

 

I say: Cutler's played three years. You do not get to pass go, no...you will go directly to jail on this one.

 

You said: So Im not sure how an 86 qb rating is not even pretty good when there are multiple HOF Qb's who have lower career ratings.

 

I say: Again, stop comparing 3 years of stats to someone who's posted these stats over 2 decades time. And again, stop twisting my words -- where did I say Cutler sucked and that he wasn't good?! You took my "pretty good" comment above and twisted it, when I made it clear that I think the Bears gave up WAY too much for "just" a 86 rating. Nothing more.

 

I leave you with this:

 

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

I think it's pretty silly to judge the QB rating considering he has had no defense and had to try and do things on offense which he would never have had to do if he had a solid defense. I expect the rating to rise somewhat dramatically now that he doesn't feel as though he has to score every drive...

 

I agree, but that's besides the point.

 

My basic point stands. What the Bears gave up should have returned greatness, instead it returned pretty goodness.

[Soxbadger]

If Cutler's ratings "rise dramatically" he will be in first ballot HOF range.

 

Marino only had a career rating of 86.4.

 

For a young QB 3 consecutive years of 86+ rating is pretty good, most of the guys who have done better are all in or going to the HOF.

[Y2HH]

If Cutler's ratings "rise dramatically" he will be in first ballot HOF range.

 

Marino only had a career rating of 86.4.

 

For a young QB 3 consecutive years of 86+ rating is pretty good, most of the guys who have done better are all in or going to the HOF.

 

Keep in mind, I also said Cutler has all the tools to become great -- but right now he isn't great. I'm not saying he can't or won't someday be a HOF QB, but right now...he's not, and he's going to have a harder time with the Bears WR's...who are a joke.

[Soxbadger]

I say: Again, stop comparing 3 years of stats to someone who's posted these stats over 2 decades time. And again, stop twisting my words -- where did I say Cutler sucked and that he wasn't good?! Oh, that's right, I said he was good, I merely said he wasn't great. That goes back to my original point, what the Bears gave up should have returned great -- instead, it returned pretty good.

 

I compared each of those qb's first 3 seasons to Cutlers.

 

Only Young and Marino put up significantly better stats than Cutler.

 

You can say "sophomore slump" for Farve, but the facts are his average rating over his first 3 years is: 82.7333

 

That is significantly lower than Cutler, not to mention Farve threw for significantly less yards.

 

So go ahead and find all of these Qb's who have put up 3 consecutive years of 86+ qb ratings in their first 3 seasons.

 

Bottom line is if you want to call Cutler only "good" at this point, it means there has only been 1 QB who is great in his first 3 seasons (Marino, Young was 30 in his second season).

 

But hey you quoted Billy Madison, so you must be much smarter than me.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Soxbadger

[Steve9347]

ESPN is hilariously bad, they spent a month talking about how great Cutler is, with updates about Cutler 24/7, and the fact that he could change the scope of the AFC East if he came to the Jets or the NFC East if he came to the Redskins.

 

He goes to the Bears and now, bad trade.

 

At least John Clayton got it right and said it was a great trade for the Bears, but that might have been the final straw for me with ESPN.

[Y2HH]

I compared each of those qb's first 3 seasons to Cutlers.

 

Only Young and Marino put up significantly better stats than Cutler.

 

You can say "sophomore slump" for Farve, but the facts are his average rating over his first 3 years is: 82.7333

 

That is significantly lower than Cutler, not to mention Farve threw for significantly less yards.

 

So go ahead and find all of these Qb's who have put up 3 consecutive years of 86+ qb ratings in their first 3 seasons.

 

Bottom line is if you want to call Cutler only "good" at this point, it means there has only been 1 QB who is great in his first 3 seasons (Marino, Young was 30 in his second season).

 

But hey you quoted Billy Madison, so you must be much smarter than me.

 

I don't disagree with you when you say: Bottom line is if you want to call Cutler only "good" at this point, it means there has only been 1 QB who is great in his first 3 seasons (Marino, Young was 30 in his second season).

 

Favre wasn't great his first few seasons. He was good. Cutler is also good. Again, I repeat, Cutler could someday be great, but that doesn't mean he will be. I repeat myself again -- what they Bears gave up in trade (IMO) was for great -- but what they got in exchange was good. Hey, it worked out for the Packers on the Favre deal...maybe it'll work out for the Bears too. I'm just not holding my breath.

 

And yes, because I quoted Billy Madison I'm smarter than you. Not quite sure where that came from, but ok, I accept.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

If Cutler's ratings "rise dramatically" he will be in first ballot HOF range.

 

Marino only had a career rating of 86.4.

 

For a young QB 3 consecutive years of 86+ rating is pretty good, most of the guys who have done better are all in or going to the HOF.

 

I think if you sign a Torry Holt, protect Cutler fairly well, and play decent defense, you'll see Cutler put up a rating in the mid-to-high 90's.

 

 

[chimpy2121]

At least John Clayton got it right and said it was a great trade for the Bears, but that might have been the final straw for me with ESPN.

 

Getting the MLB Network HD channel means all of this baseball season I will get to avoid SportsCenter and Baseball Tonight. I just hope that channel doesn't pick up a bias. So far so good though.

[Steve9347]

Getting the MLB Network HD channel means all of this baseball season I will get to avoid SportsCenter and Baseball Tonight. I just hope that channel doesn't pick up a bias. So far so good though.

I'm hoping Comcast Chicago adds that s*** in HD ASAP.

[chimpy2121]

I'm hoping Comcast Chicago adds that s*** in HD ASAP.

Comcast here just added it yesterday, so there may be hope.

[Kalapse]

I'm hoping Comcast Chicago adds that s*** in HD ASAP.

Channel 233, added 2 days ago.

[Soxbadger]

Youre changing your tune:

 

1) 86 is NOT a "pretty good" QB rating for a guy that cost you a serviceable QB, 2 first round picks and a 3rd round pick. Yes, Cutler is better than Orton, but for what you gave up, you got robbed as far as I'm concerned.

 

Bottom line, IMO, Cutler is an upgrade for the Bears -- he's just not nearly as much of an upgrade as Bear nation is trying to make it out to be. You can tell how QB starved this town is when people rejoice about the greatness that is Cutler, when he's not even near being great. As for his "pro-bowl" season, also a joke...with statistics like that, it means he made the pro-bowl because of lack of QB talent in his conference, not because he actually belonged there.

 

Key Points:

 

You never say Cutler is good, you instead say 86 is not "pretty good". I have provided information that shows an 86 qb rating is good enough to be a HOF qb. Now maybe you dont believe HOF qbs are good, I dont know.

 

Second point:

 

As for his "pro-bowl" season, also a joke...with statistics like that, it means he made the pro-bowl because of lack of QB talent in his conference, not because he actually belonged there.

 

Lets look at Marino's 1985 Pro Bowl season, versus Cutler:

 

G CMP ATT PCT YDS AVG TD LNG INT RAT

 

Marino 16 336 567 59.3 4137 7.3 30 73 21 84.1

 

Cutler 16 384 616 62.3 4526 7.3 25 93 18 86.0

 

I guess Marino didnt belong in the pro-bowl that year and shouldnt have been first team NFL?

 

But if you want to back track now and say that Cutler is good and that an 86 is good for a 3rd year QB, go ahead.

 

The problem is you started off saying that the Bears were robbed, when I find it hard to believe that most people would think twice about trading the exact same package for a young Marino, Montana etc.

 

Cutler may never turn into a HOF qb, but all of his statistics compare favorably to HOF players. Personally (and Im not even a Cutler fan), I think that he should have commanded more in terms of trading, the problem was the Broncos had to deal him.

 

As for the Billy Madison quote, I have no clue as to why you decided to post it. It seemed like you were trying to be condescending about the fact I compared the industrial revolution to a story about a dog growing up, but whatever I feel the comparison was apt.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Soxbadger