Rodgers/Cutler statistical comparison, head to head

[Patler]

2008 Performance
Category - Rodgers/Cutler

attempts - 536/616
completions - 341/384
comp. % - 63.6%/62.3%
total yards - 4038/4526
yds/att. - 7.5/7.3
touchdowns - 28/25
interceptions - 13/18
comp. for 1sts - 182/222
sacks - 34/11
sack yds - 231/69
passer rating - 93.8/86.0
carries - 56/57
rush yds - 207/200

Cutlers biggest advantage - avoiding sacks
Rodgers biggest advantage - avoiding interceptions.
Could be that the two go hand in hand. To avoid a sack, Cutler makes a risky throw. To avoid the risk of an interception, Rodgers takes sacks.

Beyond that, not a lot of difference between the two in statistical performance.

[Fritz]

Thank you, Patler. As always, you try to keep us grounded in facts, so Packerrats who go off on idiotic tangents can be called out. Of course, that often does not stop the idiocy, but carry on we must.

So thank you. Better to try to fencourage people to ground opinions in facts, expert opinion, and logic. I'm not against emotion, but when one has a purely emotion-based opinion yet tries to argue it is grounded in logic, and then pulls "facts" out that are just complete fabrications - well, it's funny when Stephen Colbert does it, but when it happens here it's idiocy.

On a slightly related note, I was frankly just a little irked at a line in the JSO this morning - that Cutler is immediately "the most talented and accomplished QB in the division." Accomplished I can live with - Cutler has more game experience than Rodgers. But he is not obviously more talented, not by any stretch. In fact, based on the statistics you post, one could argue that if Cutler has more game experience, and if you accept that both QB's played for teams with similar talent levels, then you can conclude that Rodgers may have more talent, as he posted very similar numbers despite not having the game experience that Cutler has.

I wouldn't, myself, trade Rodgers for Cutler straight up. Sure, Cutler has a bit more history, but I prefer Rodgers.

We shall see.

[Patler]

Thanks Fritz.

I, too, would not trade Rodgers for Cutler at this point. However, if I had Cutler I might not trade him for Rodgers either. Obviously, we have no clue about their true personalities, but in the face of team and roster adversities faced by Rodgers in the Favre fiasco and Cutler in the Cassel fiasco and its fallout, Rodgers seemed to act the more professional and adult of the two. But then again, Rodger was the up and coming player benefiting from his teams actions, and Cutler was the king getting knocked of his pedestal by his team, so their different reactions might be expected.

It is clear that the Packers can not claim an advantage at the QB position in the NFC North, but I don't think they are at a disadvantage either. Cutler is a good improvement for the Bears. Time will tell if they can use that to shape their team into a legitimate SB contender, or if they will be like the Packers since their SB appearances, often a favorite to make the playoffs, but not a real SB contender.

[RashanGary]

I wouldn't want Rodgers to be much lower than 25. QB's (the year they win the SB) tend to have about that many. They're a little too high right now.

[Fritz]

Again on a slightly related note, I saw several posters here claiming that the Bears also have the second best running back in the division. There is no doubt that Peterson of Minny is the best - who wouldn't want that guy - but I wonder how, in the coming years, Grant will stack up against Forte.

As for the QB's there is nothing wrong with saying both Cutler and Rodgers are rather good. I do think the NFC North just took a step up - unless Cutler turns out to be Jeff George's illegitimate son.

[Patler]

Again on a slightly related note, I saw several posters here claiming that the Bears also have the second best running back in the division. There is no doubt that Peterson of Minny is the best - who wouldn't want that guy - but I wonder how, in the coming years, Grant will stack up against Forte.

Might as well do a Grant/Forte comparison too:

Category - Grant/Forte

carries - 312/316
yards - 1203/1238
Avg/carry - 3.9/3.9
longest - 57/50
receptions - 18/63
rec. yds - 116/477

Obviously, the huge advantage goes to Forte in receiving. Grant never has been incorporated well into the Packer passing game. However, I think you have to look a little deeper than just the raw reception numbers. GB doesn't even use Grant in passing situations on 3rd down, usually opting for Jackson instead. In Chicago, their two best receiving options on any down/distance are the TE and Forte. Not the case in GB where there are 5 solid options at WR and a decent receiving TE.

As runners, I'm not sure there is a lot of difference. As all-around backs, or just looking at ability as receivers, a clear advantage goes to Forte.

[Bretsky]

Again on a slightly related note, I saw several posters here claiming that the Bears also have the second best running back in the division. There is no doubt that Peterson of Minny is the best - who wouldn't want that guy - but I wonder how, in the coming years, Grant will stack up against Forte.

As for the QB's there is nothing wrong with saying both Cutler and Rodgers are rather good. I do think the NFC North just took a step up - unless Cutler turns out to be Jeff George's illegitimate son.


I'd trade Grant for Forte in a second; Forte seems to have an advantage seeing holes, juking, and catching the ball. Grant probably has more power.

[pack4to84]

Cutler's Stats from '08 vs 3-4 defense

SD, Den won 39-38
36/50 72% 350 yds 4 TD 1 INT 1 sack 11.1 yd avg passing

NE, lost 41-7
17/26 65.4% 168 yds 1 TD 2 INT 3 sacks 5.3 yd avg

MIA, lost 26-17
24/46 52.2% 307 yds 2 TD 3 INT 1 sack 6.5 yd avg

CLE, won 34-30
24/42 57.1% 447 yds 3 TD 1 INT 1 sack 10.3 yd avg

Jets, won 34-17
27/43 62.8% 357 yds 2 TD 1 INT 0 sacks 8.3 yd avg

SD, lost 52-21
33/49 67.4% 316 yds 1 TD 2 INT 6.4 yd avg

total
161/256 62.9% 1945 yds 324.2 yds avg 13 TD 10 INT 6 sacks

2007

SD, lost 41-3
23/36 63.9% 232 yds 0 TD 1 INT 1 sack

PIT, won 31-28
22/29 75.9% 248 yds 3 TD 2 INT 2 sacks

SD, lost 23-3
14/32 43.8% 155 yds 0 TD 2 INT 4 sacks

total
59/97 60.8% 635 yds 211.67 avg 3 TD 5 INT 7 sacks

totals for both seasons
220/353 62.3 2580 yds 286.67 avg 16 TD 15 INT 13 sacks

[Bretsky]

I agree with Patler; I think they are very comparable. I think those who think AROD is undoubtedly better...and there seem to be a lot.....are homers. I also this those who think Cutler is hands down the better QB are nuts as well. If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

[Patler]

If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

Probably true, but more on reputation than anything, I think. Cutler came in as a high draft pick, took over the last 5 games as a rookie, etc. Rodgers started out with a negative, falling far in the 1st round, playing hardly at all for 3 seasons, having unfortunate injuries, etc. Cutler is still living on the reputation he had going into the draft. Rodgers needs to reclaim his.

Cutler really hasn't accomplished anything yet either, especially the end of last season when a playoff spot was there to be had. It just surprises me that the team that knows him best seemed so disinterested in keeping him. I know, new coaching staff, history with Cassel, etc., etc. It still seems odd that they would throw away a top five or top 10 QB, if he really was one. Just a bit odd with a position so important as QB. Teams often struggle for years to find one. Denver has since Elway left. Then they let their relationship get destroyed with the best long term prospect they've had, and they gave up on trying to rebuild it with very little time or effort.

[packrat]

Taking the sack instead of throwing the interception is not a trivial difference. It is part of the reason why the change from Favre to Rodgers was made.

[Patler]

Taking the sack instead of throwing the interception is not a trivial difference. It is part of the reason why the change from Favre to Rodgers was made.

It depends. If it is a QB who often completes the risky throw, making plays that others could not, you will gladly take the occasional interception to also get those completions. That was the situation throughout much of Favre's career. A lot of good for a little bad.

[]{ilr]3]

I agree with Patler; I think they are very comparable. I think those who think AROD is undoubtedly better...and there seem to be a lot.....are homers. I also this those who think Cutler is hands down the better QB are nuts as well. If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

A lot the talking heads in the media seem to think Rodgers is the better QB with out question.

I look forward to a lot of INT's next year for Culter and a lot of sacks. He had Brandon Marshall most of the year last year and a great O-line. Now he has nothing except Pace and the Rams let him go for more than just saving money i expect.

[sheepshead]

Today, I will take Arod for whats between his ears as evidenced in how he has handled himself during one of the NFL's ugliest soap operas in memory. Cutler on the other hand has health concerns, substance abuse and reacted like a cry baby these last few months. Not saying he cant overcome all this, but our guy doesn't seem to have this baggage.

Interesting Grant / Forte comparison. I thought the Bears ran him more. He looks like the real deal though and should get better with Cutler airing it out some.

[Zool]

If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

The only reason that more would say Cutler is his extra year and a half of starting experience. Cutlers stats are going to go down this year with that WR core he's moving over to and Lovie always wanting to establish the run first. I'd take Rodgers over Cutler because I'm not a big fan of chucking the ball into coverage hoping for a play to be made. I also think Orton's stats are going to go up this year. He seems like a heady guy.

Cutler also doesnt seem to be beloved in the locker room. Urlacker has already said that he will miss Orton, and I bet a few other players have gotten some airtime in the Chicago area saying the same thing. Havent heard much of a peep from the Denver area yet.

I'd take Cutler over Rev Orton Heat but talent alone doesn't win games so I might be wrong.

[Dabaddestbear]

{ilr]3]
I agree with Patler; I think they are very comparable. I think those who think AROD is undoubtedly better...and there seem to be a lot.....are homers. I also this those who think Cutler is hands down the better QB are nuts as well. If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

.....A lot the talking heads in the media seem to think Rodgers is the better QB with out question.
You know better. IN my other post I showed articles from all major sports websites that say just the opposite. The only talkoing heads that said that stupid crap was the two idiots that none of you like on ESPN until now when they seem to have an obvious bias against Cutler. I already provided proof of this.

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.

[Partial]

I think the main reason for the INT difference is that Cutler is playing using the entire field, where as A-Rod didn't use the middle of the field until late in the season, and even then it wasn't often.

[run pMc]

I think Cutler and Rodgers are pretty comparable, and the statistics seem to back that up. Cutler has a rocket arm and a gambler mentality. Having less game experience, I think Rodgers has more room to improve. Both are quality QB's.

One difference really sticks out to me: I like how Rodgers handled all the scrutiny last offseason with the Favre retirement drama. That was a lot of pressure for a QB w/ 0 regular season starts. I don't think Cutler would have handled it with as much grace.

As for the INTs vs. sacks, whether I'm the HC or just a fan, I'd rather see a QB throw the ball away or take the sack vs. throwing a bad pick. Each team only has so many possessions in a game, which is why turnovers and field position are important.

[cpk1994]

Taking the sack instead of throwing the interception is not a trivial difference. It is part of the reason why the change from Favre to Rodgers was made.

It depends. If it is a QB who often completes the risky throw, making plays that others could not, you will gladly take the occasional interception to also get those completions. That was the situation throughout much of Favre's career. A lot of good for a little bad.But that is only if you can limit the bad somewhat thru playcalling. The last few years, save 2008 with McCarthy, the bad wasn't limited enough. Rodgers stayed within the gameplan so their wasn't so much bad that needed to be curtailed by the play calling.

[LL2]

I just heard the news this morning on the Cutler trade to ChiTown. I think it's good news and it will put the rivalry between Packers and Bears into prominence again. Cutler and Rodgers are good friends so they have to be loving the idea they will play each other twice a year. Hopefully Rodgers will be the one talking smack!

[Patler]

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


Yet Denver averaged 116 yards rushing per game, while the Packers averaged 112.
Denver averaged 4.8yds/carry, the Packers averaged 4.1.

Which QB really had the support of a better running game???

[cpk1994]

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


Yet Denver averaged 116 yards rushing per game, while the Packers averaged 112.
Denver averaged 4.8yds/carry, the Packers averaged 4.1.

Which QB really had the support of a better running game???In this fight of Patler vs. The Bear Troll, I have Patler well ahead on my card. One more knockdown like this and the ref will have to call it. :lol:

[gbgary]

2008 Performance
Category - Rodgers/Cutler

attempts - 536/616
completions - 341/384
comp. % - 63.6%/62.3%
total yards - 4038/4526
yds/att. - 7.5/7.3
touchdowns - 28/25
interceptions - 13/18
comp. for 1sts - 182/222
sacks - 34/11
sack yds - 231/69
passer rating - 93.8/86.0
carries - 56/57
rush yds - 207/200

Cutlers biggest advantage - avoiding sacks
Rodgers biggest advantage - avoiding interceptions.
Could be that the two go hand in hand. To avoid a sack, Cutler makes a risky throw. To avoid the risk of an interception, Rodgers takes sacks.

Beyond that, not a lot of difference between the two in statistical performance.


i wonder what the time-of-possession was for each team?

[Bossman641]

I think the main reason for the INT difference is that Cutler is playing using the entire field, where as A-Rod didn't use the middle of the field until late in the season, and even then it wasn't often.

Whoa Partial, back the train up. I thought Rodgers is what he is though and won't improve at all? You just pointed out here one thing that he can and will improve on with more playing time and experience. Or is Rodgers always gonna be a quarterback who doesn't use the whole field?

[BZnDallas]

{ilr]3]
I agree with Patler; I think they are very comparable. I think those who think AROD is undoubtedly better...and there seem to be a lot.....are homers. I also this those who think Cutler is hands down the better QB are nuts as well. If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

.....A lot the talking heads in the media seem to think Rodgers is the better QB with out question.
You know better. IN my other post I showed articles from all major sports websites that say just the opposite. The only talkoing heads that said that stupid crap was the two idiots that none of you like on ESPN until now when they seem to have an obvious bias against Cutler. I already provided proof of this.

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


i just thought this was funny as hell coming from you Baddest... with all the discussions about BF last offseason, now its ok to throw INTs if you throw more passes... hmmmm... :wink:

[gobias]

Thanks Patler, good info.

It will be interesting to see how Cutler performs with far less talent around him. I'm confident that Rodgers will have another great year, and the Pack can turn it around!

[3irty1]

I expect Rodgers to always look better on paper but there are a lot of things to love about Cutler. If nothing else Bears fans finally got an offense that's worth watching on TV. I think the trade is in the Bears favor but we'll see how the Broncos use those picks.

[Fritz]

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


Yet Denver averaged 116 yards rushing per game, while the Packers averaged 112.
Denver averaged 4.8yds/carry, the Packers averaged 4.1.

Which QB really had the support of a better running game???In this fight of Patler vs. The Bear Troll, I have Patler well ahead on my card. One more knockdown like this and the ref will have to call it. :lol:

"DaBaddest Bear is staggering! Blood is streaming down his face; his right eye is swollen shut! He's looking wobbly on his feet - I'm surprised the referee hasn't stepped in already. One more blow and -

Ohh! Down goes Dabear! Down goes Dabear! Down goes Dabear!"

[Zool]

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


Yet Denver averaged 116 yards rushing per game, while the Packers averaged 112.
Denver averaged 4.8yds/carry, the Packers averaged 4.1.

Which QB really had the support of a better running game???In this fight of Patler vs. The Bear Troll, I have Patler well ahead on my card. One more knockdown like this and the ref will have to call it. :lol:

"DaBaddest Bear is staggering! Blood is streaming down his face; his right eye is swollen shut! He's looking wobbly on his feet - I'm surprised the referee hasn't stepped in already. One more blow and -

Ohh! Down goes Dabear! Down goes Dabear! Down goes Dabear!"

I assume you meant to type

BEAR DOWN! BEAR DOWN!

[oregonpackfan]

I think Cutler and Rodgers are pretty comparable, and the statistics seem to back that up. Cutler has a rocket arm and a gambler mentality. Having less game experience, I think Rodgers has more room to improve. Both are quality QB's.

One difference really sticks out to me: I like how Rodgers handled all the scrutiny last offseason with the Favre retirement drama. That was a lot of pressure for a QB w/ 0 regular season starts. I don't think Cutler would have handled it with as much grace.



Excellent thread, Patler!

This poster brings up another huge point.One unmeasureable not mentioned in the comparison is the maturity factor. Last season, I thought Aaron Rodgers handled the entire Brett Favre retirement/unretirement/trade debacle with remarkable personal and professional poise. Not only did Rodgers have to replace a legendary, future HOF quarterback, he had to replace a legendary, future HOF quarterback who was still playing in the NFL for another team!

On the other hand, Jay Cutler showed a great deal of immaturity when he found out his new coach was considering a possible trade. He cut off communication between himself and the entire Broncos organization which resulted in the recent trade to the Bears.

As a Packer fan, I have a considerable amount of confidence with Aaron Rodgers as the Packers QB.

[Fritz]

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


Yet Denver averaged 116 yards rushing per game, while the Packers averaged 112.
Denver averaged 4.8yds/carry, the Packers averaged 4.1.

Which QB really had the support of a better running game???In this fight of Patler vs. The Bear Troll, I have Patler well ahead on my card. One more knockdown like this and the ref will have to call it. :lol:

"DaBaddest Bear is staggering! Blood is streaming down his face; his right eye is swollen shut! He's looking wobbly on his feet - I'm surprised the referee hasn't stepped in already. One more blow and -

Ohh! Down goes Dabear! Down goes Dabear! Down goes Dabear!"

I assume you meant to type

BEAR DOWN! BEAR DOWN!

Nope. I was making reference to Howard Cosell's famous Ali/Frazier fight call: "Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazer! Down goes Frazier!"

[Dabaddestbear]

{ilr]3]
I agree with Patler; I think they are very comparable. I think those who think AROD is undoubtedly better...and there seem to be a lot.....are homers. I also this those who think Cutler is hands down the better QB are nuts as well. If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

.....A lot the talking heads in the media seem to think Rodgers is the better QB with out question.
You know better. IN my other post I showed articles from all major sports websites that say just the opposite. The only talkoing heads that said that stupid crap was the two idiots that none of you like on ESPN until now when they seem to have an obvious bias against Cutler. I already provided proof of this.

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


i just thought this was funny as hell coming from you Baddest... with all the discussions about BF last offseason, now its ok to throw INTs if you throw more passes... hmmmm... :wink:
Come on man, he does not toss INT's like good ole boy Brett..lol.
In comparison on MIke and Mike they pointed out that he threw a INT every 33rd pass (I think) in comparison to Brett tossing one every 25 passes!. They said he only threw 4 in the 4th quarter and was 3rd in the NFL in 3rd down efficiency when converting first downs. They pointed out that his INT's was in the middle range for QB's in the NFL not real bad or real good. I know one mentionable QB that threw more INT's per attempt was Big Ben.

[Spaulding]

I'm slow on the draw, does this mean that Rex is no longer the "chosen" one for the Bears?

:D

Cutler's a fine addition (came at obviously a high cost but could elevate the team on a consistent basis and keep them in any game) but his baggage leaves a little to be desired.

Hard to say if the he said/he said drama really is his fault or the Broncos organization.

If they can lock him up with an extension I think given the fact that they are getting a pro-bowl QB in their prime is well worth the price.

Would I take him over Rodgers, admittedly I'm a homer and thus since I consider last years performance a wash between the two, I'd give the slight nod to Rodgers with hope that continues to evolve and the comparison becomes clear cut in his favor.

On a side note, Mike and Mike in the morning had Ditka on the show and he gave his thumbs up to the trade (then again he did trade the house for Ricky and look how that turned out).

The Build-A-Bearnation looks to be coming out of hibernation and should make for an interesting year.

[Waldo]

To add to this, some effectiveness stats:
Sacks are included as attempts, sack yards are included as negative passing yards.

I added the league MVP (Manning) and Orton to compare, and first half '08, last half '08 for Rodgers to show his change over the season:

YPA:
2008 Manning - 6.88
2008 Rodgers - 6.68
2008 Orton - 5.72
2008 Cutler - 7.11
2007 Cutler - 6.77
2006 Cutler - 6.11
2008a ARod - 6.73
2008b ARod - 6.63

TDPA (%):
2008 Manning - 4.7
2008 Rodgers - 4.9
2008 Orton - 3.7
2008 Cutler - 4.0
2007 Cutler - 4.0
2006 Cutler - 6.0
2008a ARod - 4.7
2008b ARod - 5.2

IntPA (%):
2008 Manning - 2.1
2008 Rodgers - 2.3
2008 Orton - 2.4
2008 Cutler - 2.9
2007 Cutler - 2.8
2006 Cutler - 3.3
2008a ARod - 1.8
2008b ARod - 2.7

SackPA (%):
2008 Manning - 2.5
2008 Rodgers - 6.0
2008 Orton - 5.5
2008 Cutler - 1.8
2007 Cutler - 5.5
2006 Cutler - 8.7
2008a ARod - 6.1
2008b ARod - 5.8

AdjComp%:
2008 Manning - 65.2
2008 Rodgers - 59.8
2008 Orton - 55.3
2008 Cutler - 61.2
2007 Cutler - 60.1
2006 Cutler - 54.0
2008a ARod - 59.9
2008b ARod - 59.8

I don't think you're gonna see the Bears score at an increased rate, Cutler really isn't any better at throwing TD's than Orton is, however he can move the ball a little better, but throws more int's and takes a lot less sacks.

You can see AR took less sacks per attempt (even losing Taush) in the second half of the year, and both his TD rate and int rate went up, while he still completed roughly the same % of his dropbacks, and his YPA declined slightly.

[pbmax]

Come on man, he does not toss INT's like good ole boy Brett..lol.
In comparison on MIke and Mike they pointed out that he threw a INT every 33rd pass (I think) in comparison to Brett tossing one every 25 passes!. They said he only threw 4 in the 4th quarter and was 3rd in the NFL in 3rd down efficiency when converting first downs. They pointed out that his INT's was in the middle range for QB's in the NFL not real bad or real good. I know one mentionable QB that threw more INT's per attempt was Big Ben.
You're being a good sport DBB, so first off, kudos to you and congratulations to the Bears.

But on the INT rate, Favre's career number is 3.3% compared to Cutler's 3.0%. That sounds close, but not exact, to the numbers you mention from M&M. But both are below average in today's NFL. Compared to passers from the 60s and 70s, those numbers look Hall Of Fame, but since the passing rules changed in '78, those rates are both below average.

My question is: Since the Bears and Packers historically have not been good at the same time, who is headed down? :lol:

[Lurker64]

If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

I think a lot of that may have to do with the fact that unbiased fans can still be affected by the biases of others. Cutler has received a lot more positive coverage from the national media, both because he's not trying to fill the shoes of a legend and because he has significantly more starts and they don't talk about you so much while you're warming a bench. The sheer level of acrimony in the Favre drama (let's not talk about it here, please) lead to a lot of people being a lot more critical of Rodgers than they would have been otherwise. The "Benching Jake Plummer" saga was much less dramatic.

[Patler]

Now lets look at another comparison, Rodgers first year as a starter in 2008 to Cutler's first full year as a starter in 2007. Keep in mind that Cutler started the last 5 games of 2006, so 2007 includes his 6th through 21st starts as a pro:

Category - Rodgers'08/Cutler '07

attempts - 536/467
completions - 341/297
comp. % - 63.6%/63.6
total yards - 4038/3497
yds/att. - 7.5/7.5
touchdowns - 28/20
interceptions - 13/14
sacks - 34/27
sack yds - 231/153
passer rating - 93.8/88.1
carries - 56/44
rush yds - 207/205

Things become even closer, including sacks and interceptions.

[Dabaddestbear]

Come on man, he does not toss INT's like good ole boy Brett..lol.
In comparison on MIke and Mike they pointed out that he threw a INT every 33rd pass (I think) in comparison to Brett tossing one every 25 passes!. They said he only threw 4 in the 4th quarter and was 3rd in the NFL in 3rd down efficiency when converting first downs. They pointed out that his INT's was in the middle range for QB's in the NFL not real bad or real good. I know one mentionable QB that threw more INT's per attempt was Big Ben.
You're being a good sport DBB, so first off, kudos to you and congratulations to the Bears.

But on the INT rate, Favre's career number is 3.3% compared to Cutler's 3.0%. That sounds close, but not exact, to the numbers you mention from M&M. But both are below average in today's NFL. Compared to passers from the 60s and 70s, those numbers look Hall Of Fame, but since the passing rules changed in '78, those rates are both below average.

My question is: Since the Bears and Packers historically have not been good at the same time, who is headed down? :lol:
To be honest, I hate to say it, but I think you guys will be good also. JUst not as good as the Bears. :wink:

I have said this many times, but this year the NFC North overall may be the division other teams would prefer not play. We all seem pretty solid going into this year, and that is with still many more moves yet to be made after preseason cuts, and draft. It can only get better, unless one of our teams make a real stupid trade gutting star players.

[RashanGary]

Raw Talent:

Rodgers < Cutler (bigger arm)




Better football player over course of career:

Cutler < Rodgers (hard worker, mature, good person, good teammate, easy to get along with, good leader, coach on the field, football savvy and has a whole hell of a lot of physical talent).

Just my guess.


The Bears got better and they got better right now. They'll start to miss those picks over the next 6-10 years, but for right now and next year, they got a lot better. I agree with baddest, the NFCN is legit with the Packers, Bears and Vikings (in no particular order). If the Lions even get to the 4-6 win category, this will be one of the strongest overall divisions in football.

[Waldo]

Bigger arm =/= raw talent.

Accuracy is something there is no stat to describe, yet it is just as important as arm strength when evaluating raw talent. Pennington may have a noodle, but it's a darn accurate noodle.

Aaron's arm isn't weak, it's above average but not a cannon, but his ball placement, and consistency of ball placement, is very good, and has been his whole career going back to college. Aaron doesn't misfire hardly at all.

[RashanGary]

Cutler is very accurate too.


Rodgers is more stable and a better leader though. Rodgers has more than enough raw talent and I agree, is very accurate. Cutler might be one of the top 3 pure passers in the game right now after Brady and Peyton Manning.

I have zero problem with Rodgers though. Rodgers has a championship style about him. I have a good feeling he is going to win one or two SB's in his career.

[LL2]

Cutler is very accurate too.


Rodgers is more stable and a better leader though. Rodgers has more than enough raw talent and I agree, is very accurate. Cutler might be one of the top 3 pure passers in the game right now after Brady and Peyton Manning.

I have zero problem with Rodgers though. Rodgers has a championship style about him. I have a good feeling he is going to win one or two SB's in his career.

I'd love that!

[Merlin]

I wouldn't trade Rodgers for Cutler. I don't think Cutler is that great to be all honest. Denver is a big rushing team and obviously we are to date, not. Without a good running game Cutler would look like Alex Smith. The Bears do have a running game, now if they get some WR's then they will have a good offense for a change.

[Dabaddestbear]

I wouldn't trade Rodgers for Cutler. I don't think Cutler is that great to be all honest. Denver is a big rushing team and obviously we are to date, not. Without a good running game Cutler would look like Alex Smith. The Bears do have a running game, now if they get some WR's then they will have a good offense for a change.
I see some bitter rival fans just say anything to be get a post in..lol.
Denver is a big rushing team? THEY ONLY HAD TWO GAMES LAST SEASON IN WHICH THE BRONCOS RUSHED FOR 100 YARDS.

And to follow that up you say, without a running game Cutler would look like Alex Smith? Umm, the Bears have a much better running game than the Broncos do, so what does that say now?
Ok, what happened to the logical Packer fans I was chatting with earlier. I miss them already. :roll:

[BEARMAN]

One thing not mentioned is that Cutler is coming off a Pro Bowl year ! Three years as a Starter and only 25 years old. Look Out, Da BEARS are coming and they are HUNGERY ! :twisted:

[Bossman641]

I wouldn't trade Rodgers for Cutler. I don't think Cutler is that great to be all honest. Denver is a big rushing team and obviously we are to date, not. Without a good running game Cutler would look like Alex Smith. The Bears do have a running game, now if they get some WR's then they will have a good offense for a change.
I see some bitter rival fans just say anything to be get a post in..lol.
Denver is a big rushing team? THEY ONLY HAD TWO GAMES LAST SEASON IN WHICH THE BRONCOS RUSHED FOR 100 YARDS.

And to follow that up you say, without a running game Cutler would look like Alex Smith? Umm, the Bears have a much better running game than the Broncos do, so what does that say now?
Ok, what happened to the logical Packer fans I was chatting with earlier. I miss them already. :roll:

Patler addressed that earlier.


Yet Denver averaged 116 yards rushing per game, while the Packers averaged 112.
Denver averaged 4.8yds/carry, the Packers averaged 4.1.

Which QB really had the support of a better running game???

[Dabaddestbear]

I wouldn't trade Rodgers for Cutler. I don't think Cutler is that great to be all honest. Denver is a big rushing team and obviously we are to date, not. Without a good running game Cutler would look like Alex Smith. The Bears do have a running game, now if they get some WR's then they will have a good offense for a change.
I see some bitter rival fans just say anything to be get a post in..lol.
Denver is a big rushing team? THEY ONLY HAD TWO GAMES LAST SEASON IN WHICH THE BRONCOS RUSHED FOR 100 YARDS.

And to follow that up you say, without a running game Cutler would look like Alex Smith? Umm, the Bears have a much better running game than the Broncos do, so what does that say now?
Ok, what happened to the logical Packer fans I was chatting with earlier. I miss them already. :roll:

Patler addressed that earlier.


Yet Denver averaged 116 yards rushing per game, while the Packers averaged 112.
Denver averaged 4.8yds/carry, the Packers averaged 4.1.

Which QB really had the support of a better running game???
The statement made was "Denver is a big rushing team..."
I pointed out that there is no way a BIG RUSHING TEAM only rushes for 100 yards only twice in a season, while the QB throws for almost 4,500 yards. Please, lets not support emotional illogical statements here buddy. :roll:

[pack4to84]

Denver rushed for 1862 yards 116.38 avg
bears rushed for 1673 yards 104.56 avg


denver 12th ranked rushing team
bears 24th ranked rushing team

so in fact denver had a better rushing team then the bears

[BZnDallas]

{ilr]3]
I agree with Patler; I think they are very comparable. I think those who think AROD is undoubtedly better...and there seem to be a lot.....are homers. I also this those who think Cutler is hands down the better QB are nuts as well. If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

.....A lot the talking heads in the media seem to think Rodgers is the better QB with out question.
You know better. IN my other post I showed articles from all major sports websites that say just the opposite. The only talkoing heads that said that stupid crap was the two idiots that none of you like on ESPN until now when they seem to have an obvious bias against Cutler. I already provided proof of this.

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


i just thought this was funny as hell coming from you Baddest... with all the discussions about BF last offseason, now its ok to throw INTs if you throw more passes... hmmmm... :wink:
Come on man, he does not toss INT's like good ole boy Brett..lol.
In comparison on MIke and Mike they pointed out that he threw a INT every 33rd pass (I think) in comparison to Brett tossing one every 25 passes!. They said he only threw 4 in the 4th quarter and was 3rd in the NFL in 3rd down efficiency when converting first downs. They pointed out that his INT's was in the middle range for QB's in the NFL not real bad or real good. I know one mentionable QB that threw more INT's per attempt was Big Ben.


first off Baddest, i think the bears got a legit starter for a qb... congrats on that...

secondly am i mistaken or didn't Cutler lead the broncos to an 8-8 record with 2 really good wrs in Marshall and Royal? Forte and Olsen (not even close)

and thirdly i think u missed my point earlier... the point i was questioning is why is it when Packer Rats agreed that BF threw alot of INTs, they argued that he threw alot of passes and played in alot more games, (unless i'm mistaken) you argued that wasn't a good enough reason... why are you aloud to use the same argument now that you have a qb YOU want to defend???... thats all i'm saying... sounds a bit hypocritical don't you think??

just a thought... but i agree with one of your other posts about the NFCN getting better and other divisions not wanting to play us... with the exception of DET... i loved the old black and blue, lets get back to those days... 8-)

[KYPack]

Great post BZ. I was gonna say about the same thing.

I have the nagging suspicion that Orton will have a good year in Denver and Cutler will struggle in Chitown.

Why? Because I hope so.

Actually, I think Orton's got a lot to prove and Cutler may have a lot of trouble with the transition.

[The Shadow]

One thing not mentioned is that Cutler is coming off a Pro Bowl year ! Three years as a Starter and only 25 years old. Look Out, Da BEARS are coming and they are HUNGERY ! :twisted:


Perhaps we should be more concerned with their spelling as they approach.

[Iron Mike]

2008 Performance
Category - Rodgers/Cutler

attempts - 536/616
completions - 341/384
comp. % - 63.6%/62.3%
total yards - 4038/4526
yds/att. - 7.5/7.3
touchdowns - 28/25
interceptions - 13/18
comp. for 1sts - 182/222
sacks - 34/11
sack yds - 231/69
passer rating - 93.8/86.0
carries - 56/57
rush yds - 207/200

Cutlers biggest advantage - avoiding sacks
Rodgers biggest advantage - avoiding interceptions.
Could be that the two go hand in hand. To avoid a sack, Cutler makes a risky throw. To avoid the risk of an interception, Rodgers takes sacks.

Beyond that, not a lot of difference between the two in statistical performance.

Except for the fact that A-Rodg didn't get to pad his stats against Oak/KC. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

[Dabaddestbear]

{ilr]3]
I agree with Patler; I think they are very comparable. I think those who think AROD is undoubtedly better...and there seem to be a lot.....are homers. I also this those who think Cutler is hands down the better QB are nuts as well. If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

.....A lot the talking heads in the media seem to think Rodgers is the better QB with out question.
You know better. IN my other post I showed articles from all major sports websites that say just the opposite. The only talkoing heads that said that stupid crap was the two idiots that none of you like on ESPN until now when they seem to have an obvious bias against Cutler. I already provided proof of this.

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


i just thought this was funny as hell coming from you Baddest... with all the discussions about BF last offseason, now its ok to throw INTs if you throw more passes... hmmmm... :wink:
Come on man, he does not toss INT's like good ole boy Brett..lol.
In comparison on MIke and Mike they pointed out that he threw a INT every 33rd pass (I think) in comparison to Brett tossing one every 25 passes!. They said he only threw 4 in the 4th quarter and was 3rd in the NFL in 3rd down efficiency when converting first downs. They pointed out that his INT's was in the middle range for QB's in the NFL not real bad or real good. I know one mentionable QB that threw more INT's per attempt was Big Ben.


first off Baddest, i think the bears got a legit starter for a qb... congrats on that...

secondly am i mistaken or didn't Cutler lead the broncos to an 8-8 record with 2 really good wrs in Marshall and Royal? Forte and Olsen (not even close)

and thirdly i think u missed my point earlier... the point i was questioning is why is it when Packer Rats agreed that BF threw alot of INTs, they argued that he threw alot of passes and played in alot more games, (unless i'm mistaken) you argued that wasn't a good enough reason... why are you aloud to use the same argument now that you have a qb YOU want to defend???... thats all i'm saying... sounds a bit hypocritical don't you think??

just a thought... but i agree with one of your other posts about the NFCN getting better and other divisions not wanting to play us... with the exception of DET... i loved the old black and blue, lets get back to those days... 8-)
If you was to look at any of those games with Denver you would see that Cutler had some great games, they lost most of those because they had a defense that couldn't stop most pop warner teams on a good day. I mean this is the same defense that allowed the Chargers to run up 52 points!! I watch most of my games at the sports bar where I can pay attention to multiple games at one time. Trust me Cutler makes throws that makes WR's look a lot better than they are. Olsen will be a top 5 TE in this league very soon(you heard it hear first), and Forte will benefit a great deal from not seeing no more 7-8 man fronts on every play. And just keep in mind that JA is not finish yet. It will be more pieces added to this puzzle before the regular season ends.

And My criticisms of Brett was he led the league in INT's AS WELL as TD's. Cutler is not an INT machine like Brett, or better yet at all.
But time will tell once the games start to play themselves out. We can debate this all day..lol.

[Dabaddestbear]

2008 Performance
Category - Rodgers/Cutler

attempts - 536/616
completions - 341/384
comp. % - 63.6%/62.3%
total yards - 4038/4526
yds/att. - 7.5/7.3
touchdowns - 28/25
interceptions - 13/18
comp. for 1sts - 182/222
sacks - 34/11
sack yds - 231/69
passer rating - 93.8/86.0
carries - 56/57
rush yds - 207/200

Cutlers biggest advantage - avoiding sacks
Rodgers biggest advantage - avoiding interceptions.
Could be that the two go hand in hand. To avoid a sack, Cutler makes a risky throw. To avoid the risk of an interception, Rodgers takes sacks.

Beyond that, not a lot of difference between the two in statistical performance.

Except for the fact that A-Rodg didn't get to pad his stats against Oak/KC. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
OAK has one of the better secondaries in the league. And in that same light the Packers played 4 games against two of the worst secondaries in the league stat wise, in the Bears and Lions. :wink:

[Bretsky]

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


Yet Denver averaged 116 yards rushing per game, while the Packers averaged 112.
Denver averaged 4.8yds/carry, the Packers averaged 4.1.

Which QB really had the support of a better running game???In this fight of Patler vs. The Bear Troll, I have Patler well ahead on my card. One more knockdown like this and the ref will have to call it. :lol:


A Bear lover is a mere appetizer for Patler; kind of like a little cheddar nugget before he has his 40 ounce steak :!:

[pbmax]

I see some bitter rival fans just say anything to be get a post in..lol. Denver is a big rushing team? THEY ONLY HAD TWO GAMES LAST SEASON IN WHICH THE BRONCOS RUSHED FOR 100 YARDS.
According to Pro Football Reference Dot Com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/den/2008.htm), the Broncos rushed for 100 yards or better in 13 out of 16 games last year. Their average would have been much higher, but they managed only 14 yards on the ground against the Dolphins.
Opp RushY
Oakland Raiders 141
San Diego Chargers 145
New Orleans Saints 105
Kansas City Chiefs 94
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 106
Jacksonville Jaguars 131
New England Patriots 106
Miami Dolphins 14
Cleveland Browns 123
Atlanta Falcons 124
Oakland Raiders 115
New York Jets 127
Kansas City Chiefs 139
Carolina Panthers 121
Buffalo Bills 181
San Diego Chargers 90

Not sure where you got the 2 games over 100 yards figure, but perhaps that is the number of backs who personally went over 100?

Cutler clearly will be in a different offense. And I think his predilection for INTs is closer to Favre than you think (3.0% INT rate vs. Favre's 3.3%). Especially early in his career, when he was still afraid of Holmgren, Favre was right around that number.

But that might be less than half the story. He is an upgrade over Orton or Grossman. And he makes the Bears better. If the questions about the defense and O Line can be resolved, they'll be better, no doubt.

[bobblehead]

I would take arod because I abhor picks. I think they are very comparable depending on what you need done.

Remember ARod is a first year starter and our line played below par last year. I think the sack numbers will get better (Cutler will always have an advantage for his fast release) so I think long term Rodgers would be my guy. Not being a homer at all here, Just what I prefer from my QB. My opinion could change a lot if the game doesn't slow down for rodgers this year, I'm building in a bit of improvement in my decision. I don't think Cutler can win a super bowl as he gambles too much.

[hoosier]

I see some bitter rival fans just say anything to be get a post in..lol. Denver is a big rushing team? THEY ONLY HAD TWO GAMES LAST SEASON IN WHICH THE BRONCOS RUSHED FOR 100 YARDS.

And to follow that up you say, without a running game Cutler would look like Alex Smith? Umm, the Bears have a much better running game than the Broncos do, so what does that say now?
Ok, what happened to the logical Packer fans I was chatting with earlier. I miss them already. :roll:

The Broncos as a team exceeded 100 yards rushing in 13 of their 16 games. Maybe you mean they only had an individual RB exceed 100 yards twice all season? And then who cares how they decided to distribute their carries? As a team Denver finished 12th in the league in rushing yards, well ahead of the Bears (24th). They also easily outdid Chicago in average yards/rush (4.8 to 3.9). And their clear statistical superiority is despite the fact that the Bears were a run-first offense and the Broncos were largely pass oriented.

[BZnDallas]

{ilr]3]
I agree with Patler; I think they are very comparable. I think those who think AROD is undoubtedly better...and there seem to be a lot.....are homers. I also this those who think Cutler is hands down the better QB are nuts as well. If you'd ask fans with some football knowledge with no bias either way who they would want at QB, I'd bet more would say Cutler

.....A lot the talking heads in the media seem to think Rodgers is the better QB with out question.
You know better. IN my other post I showed articles from all major sports websites that say just the opposite. The only talkoing heads that said that stupid crap was the two idiots that none of you like on ESPN until now when they seem to have an obvious bias against Cutler. I already provided proof of this.

Rodgers is a good QB, and may be great one day. But in no way after only one year starting is he or can he be compared to a QB that has been very good the past 3 years, and had a running game that only rushed for 100 yards TWICE last year and yet still put up those numbers even when everyone was dropping back to defend the past.
Yes he threw for more INT's, but he threw many more passes.


i just thought this was funny as hell coming from you Baddest... with all the discussions about BF last offseason, now its ok to throw INTs if you throw more passes... hmmmm... :wink:
Come on man, he does not toss INT's like good ole boy Brett..lol.
In comparison on MIke and Mike they pointed out that he threw a INT every 33rd pass (I think) in comparison to Brett tossing one every 25 passes!. They said he only threw 4 in the 4th quarter and was 3rd in the NFL in 3rd down efficiency when converting first downs. They pointed out that his INT's was in the middle range for QB's in the NFL not real bad or real good. I know one mentionable QB that threw more INT's per attempt was Big Ben.


first off Baddest, i think the bears got a legit starter for a qb... congrats on that...

secondly am i mistaken or didn't Cutler lead the broncos to an 8-8 record with 2 really good wrs in Marshall and Royal? Forte and Olsen (not even close)

and thirdly i think u missed my point earlier... the point i was questioning is why is it when Packer Rats agreed that BF threw alot of INTs, they argued that he threw alot of passes and played in alot more games, (unless i'm mistaken) you argued that wasn't a good enough reason... why are you aloud to use the same argument now that you have a qb YOU want to defend???... thats all i'm saying... sounds a bit hypocritical don't you think??

just a thought... but i agree with one of your other posts about the NFCN getting better and other divisions not wanting to play us... with the exception of DET... i loved the old black and blue, lets get back to those days... 8-)
If you was to look at any of those games with Denver you would see that Cutler had some great games, they lost most of those because they had a defense that couldn't stop most pop warner teams on a good day. I mean this is the same defense that allowed the Chargers to run up 52 points!! I watch most of my games at the sports bar where I can pay attention to multiple games at one time. Trust me Cutler makes throws that makes WR's look a lot better than they are. Olsen will be a top 5 TE in this league very soon(you heard it hear first), and Forte will benefit a great deal from not seeing no more 7-8 man fronts on every play. And just keep in mind that JA is not finish yet. It will be more pieces added to this puzzle before the regular season ends.

And My criticisms of Brett was he led the league in INT's AS WELL as TD's. Cutler is not an INT machine like Brett, or better yet at all.
But time will tell once the games start to play themselves out. We can debate this all day..lol.


Thanx KY, i wasn't sure if anybody else had wondered the same thing...


Dabaddest, i dont remember mentioning anything about TDs in the discussion... it was based soley on INTs vs. Passes Thrown... you made the same arguement (in favor of Cutler) that other Packer Rats have made (in favor of BF)... thats all i'm say'n... and then you go and do it again in this post above or maybe you just agree with other Packer Rats about the Packers Defense...

Many have discussed that the Packer Defense last year was horrible, yet AR gets most of the blame for GBs losses...

I guess i'll ask you Baddest, is it ok if we as Packer Rats use our awful defense as an excuse as you have used it for Cutler in denver???

[Pugger]

This is a silly discussion. Both QBs are very good and have performed equally in the past. The only question is how will Cutler do with a different PASSING offense than he had in Denver. Only time will tell. It will make Packer/Bare games more interesting for sure. :wink: