Cutler

[Smidgeon]

I love articles like this, the ones with extra insight into what happens behind the scenes.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2580349-why-i-drafted-jay-cutler-and-what-happened-from-there

[mraynrand]

article makes Cutler look like a victim of circumstances.

[sharpe1027]

Good read. Assuming the narrative is true, Cutler deserves some of the blame for not continuing to improve after moving to the Bears. It seems a bit biased toward Denver's program under Shanahan. For example, a blanket statement that his regression was partly due to Chicago having no interest in developing a QB? Really? The coaches didn't bother working to improve his game because they weren't interested in a project?

[denverYooper]

He should have known that Chicago is where QBs go to die.

[denverYooper]

He fell victim to one of the classic blunders!

The first is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly well-known is this: Chicago is where QBs go to die!

[Fritz]

Almost makes you feel bad for Cutler.

Almost.

[run pMc]

I'd feel bad for Cutler if he went somewhere besides Chicago. Or Detroit. I thought that was where QBs went to die, but thinking about it, Chicago or Cleveland might be even worse.

[pbmax]

I'd feel bad for Cutler if he went somewhere besides Chicago. Or Detroit. I thought that was where QBs went to die, but thinking about it, Chicago or Cleveland might be even worse.

It used to be that Cleveland was good at developing QBs, better than Green Bay until Favre and Rodgers. Everything else was often a tire fire, but they did have somewhat unexpected QB success for a long time. Kinda like Purdue.

Now they are lucky if they just contract MRSA instead of Ebola.

[wootah]

Very good read, thanks for sharing.

Cutler @Denver was fun to watch, especially that rivalry with Rivers.

[Guiness]

The paragraph about McDaniels was interesting. Talking about tire fires, wow, was he ever one. I remember him bringing in a ridiculous number of FAs his first year. Wikipedia tells me 13, but I think it was even more because some of the UFA he brought in and gave a signing bonus to were cut during camp! After getting fired by Denver, he went to St-Louis, where it was announced he'd have no hand in personnel decisions, lol

The article is missing a pretty important part of the events/timeline from Cutler's exit from Denver, the episode with NE. McDaniels tried to get Cassel and the story broke, angering Cutler. Was that before or after the conversation between him, McDaniels and Cook that is recounted in the article? I'd guess before.

[Patler]

The article smacks of a guy justifying his significant investment in a QB who has proven himself unworthy of that investment.

I'm not sure who was duped worst:
Denver in trading up to draft him.
Chicago in trading to get him.
Chicago in signing him to a new contract.

We have another thread discussing Percy Harvin. It amazes me that guys like Cutler and Harvin keep getting the benefit of the doubt. Teams continue to invest significantly in them, and they continually fail to deliver. Yet, many are willing to make excuse after excuse for them. Then there are others who do deliver, but in a less flashy way, and fail to land the big reward.

[sharpe1027]

The article smacks of a guy justifying his significant investment in a QB who has proven himself unworthy of that investment.

I'm not sure who was duped worst:
Denver in trading up to draft him.
Chicago in trading to get him.
Chicago in signing him to a new contract.

We have another thread discussing Percy Harvin. It amazes me that guys like Cutler and Harvin keep getting the benefit of the doubt. Teams continue to invest significantly in them, and they continually fail to deliver. Yet, many are willing to make excuse after excuse for them. Then there are others who do deliver, but in a less flashy way, and fail to land the big reward.

Agreed on the tone of the article.

Even if you say Denver's trade up in the first round was a waste, they got enough from the Bears trade to cushion the blow. In total, Denver got a few decent years out of Cutler, then they got two first rounds picks, a third, and Orton (they also gave up a fifth rounder). Not too shabby of a return on their investment.

[Fritz]

It's about potential. Guys that seem to have the possibility of being a few cuts above the rest will get extra money and extra chances, over and over again - even in the face of evidence that they may have topped out. Oftentimes our perceptions formed previously are so strong that it's nearly impossible to change them. We've seen this over the years on this board, with people's perceptions of Ted Thompson (his reluctance to trade up, ever, to sign FA's at all, to take risks) and of Nick Perry.

I agree that it amazes, yet it's the way people seem to be wired. I think the same thing is happening in Detroit. People are still saying that Matt Stafford can get much better, that it's the coaching, or that it's the coaching carousel, or it's the offensive line. There is a perception that he still has potential that can be developed. If the Lions finish out the season on an okay note, and if they begin better next year, I would not be surprised to see Detroit re-up Stafford to a big extension.

Me, I see a guy who is in his seventh year now. He is what he is. Strong-armed, willing, but lacking in just that little oomph of attitude the great ones all have, lacking the ability to read defenses well, and maybe getting a bit gunshy, too

[mraynrand]

Cutler may have some flaws, maybe even fatal flaws, but he is every bit the franchise QB phenotype. The Dude really has it all, and Chicago was totally hurting without him in there. He looked pretty good against the Packers, and it took a good risk by Matthews to derail him.

Did any of you see that game against KC? Cutler was amazing in that game - avoiding the rush and dropping passes in the bucket in the second half. He won that game, straight up plain and simple.

I think there's something screwy there, a funny head-case thing, but for 80-95% of the time, Cutler is franchise QB, pro bowl material.

Fritz - yeah, there's a lot similar with Stafford, except that Cutler is a cut above Stafford in all the elements, except the head case thing. Stafford has a breakdown in mechanics that kills him, but I don't where that comes from.

[mraynrand]

If I had to compare Favre and Cutler, it would be their reaction to poor protection. Favre would be all like "Screw this, I'm gonna make a play!!" and maybe run around like a chicken, throw some great throws and TDs and maybe have a rash of INTs, but Cutler would be "Screw them, I'm gonna just chuck it up there anyway" and throw mostly picks, then walk off the field 'injured' because 'what's the point.' Just a difference in attitude and response to adversity, I think.

[sharpe1027]

If I had to compare Favre and Cutler, it would be their reaction to poor protection. Favre would be all like "Screw this, I'm gonna make a play!!" and maybe run around like a chicken, throw some great throws and TDs and maybe have a rash of INTs, but Cutler would be "Screw them, I'm gonna just chuck it up there anyway" and throw mostly picks, then walk off the field 'injured' because 'what's the point.' Just a difference in attitude and response to adversity, I think.

Assuming that I am allowed to speculate based upon unsubstantiated conclusions, Cutler seems like a guy that is gotten to the point that he is collecting a paycheck. He's playing because it earns him a lot of money. Favre never reached that point. He truly wanted to be out there right up until the end. Well, maybe a bit of fatigue it crept in there late for Favre, but I think that overall he still liked playing.

[mraynrand]

Assuming that I am allowed to speculate based upon unsubstantiated conclusions, Cutler seems like a guy that is gotten to the point that he is collecting a paycheck. He's playing because it earns him a lot of money. Favre never reached that point. He truly wanted to be out there right up until the end. Well, maybe a bit of fatigue it crept in there late for Favre, but I think that overall he still liked playing.

Favre was also using the Kahn motivation playing at the end of his career. "Revenge is a dish best served cold...It is very cold in Lambeau Field"

But yeah, Favre just loved to play, if I may draw a conclusion on an obvious observation.

[Patler]

Cutler may have some flaws, maybe even fatal flaws, but he is every bit the franchise QB phenotype. The Dude really has it all, and Chicago was totally hurting without him in there. He looked pretty good against the Packers, and it took a good risk by Matthews to derail him.

Did any of you see that game against KC? Cutler was amazing in that game - avoiding the rush and dropping passes in the bucket in the second half. He won that game, straight up plain and simple.

I think there's something screwy there, a funny head-case thing, but for 80-95% of the time, Cutler is franchise QB, pro bowl material.

Fritz - yeah, there's a lot similar with Stafford, except that Cutler is a cut above Stafford in all the elements, except the head case thing. Stafford has a breakdown in mechanics that kills him, but I don't where that comes from.

I agree that Cutler has the physical ability to be a franchise-type QB, but the problem is that he does not perform that way anywhere near the 80-95% of the time that you suggest that he does. If he did, his teams would be a heck of a lot more successful than they have been. Any regular NFL starter can play well in parts of most games, even for the entirety of a number of games each year. But very few can regularly carry their teams to wins week after week, including games in which they really haven't played well enough to win. Coming through once in a while doesn't make a franchise QB.

[MadScientist]

Cutler has way above average talent, but only marginally above average results. In the article he got dinged for throwing without his feet set (a la Favre and Rodgers), taking too many sacks (like Rodgers) and throwing too many risky / pick-able balls (like Favre). The footwork isn't a true problem unless it leads to the bad throws. The killer is taking sacks and throwing picks. That's a double whammy that hurts his teams too often.

Impossible to say if solid coaching early on would have made a difference. By now it's much less likely that he will change into something good (except for Packers fans).

For all the problems Cutler has, he's a hell of a lot better than Leinhart, who was the guy Shanny really wanted. Imagine spending those extra picks on two trades up to get him.

[mraynrand]

I agree that Cutler has the physical ability to be a franchise-type QB, but the problem is that he does not perform that way anywhere near the 80-95% of the time that you suggest that he does. If he did, his teams would be a heck of a lot more successful than they have been. Any regular NFL starter can play well in parts of most games, even for the entirety of a number of games each year. But very few can regularly carry their teams to wins week after week, including games in which they really haven't played well enough to win. Coming through once in a while doesn't make a franchise QB.

I respectfully disagree, but only to a degree.

[Pugger]

Does Cutler have the heart of a champion? I don't think so. He certainly has the physical talent and a canon for an arm but his demeanor is wanting when you watch him play. It doesn't take a lot of adversity for him to say 'screw it' and just go thru the motions. I can't imagine Rodgers or Brady behaving like that.

[Guiness]

Saw an interesting statement in an article at ESPN

The Chicago Bears are 2-3, and halfback Matt Forte is the only remaining draft choice signed to a second contract.

Ouch.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Does Cutler have the heart of a champion? I don't think so. He certainly has the physical talent and a canon for an arm but his demeanor is wanting when you watch him play. It doesn't take a lot of adversity for him to say 'screw it' and just go thru the motions. I can't imagine Rodgers or Brady behaving like that.


You are repeating a 100% myth. Cutler has exceptional heart and toughness. His "demeanor" is just how he looks, nothing more. The Bears players have argued against this untrue impression from know-nothing fans and the media since Cutler has been in Chicago.

Cutler does not "go through the motions", that is baloney. There was an incident three years ago where Cutler came out of game with knee injury that was unfairly observed and reported, and that bad shake stuck to an extent.

Cutler has many talents and positive qualities. I'd say his shortcoming is in reading defenses and situations. He sometimes gets excited and makes a bad decision. He's not terrible in that regard, but his unreliable poise keeps him from being more than an above average QB.

[Smidgeon]

You are repeating a 100% myth. Cutler has exceptional heart and toughness. His "demeanor" is just how he looks, nothing more. The Bears players have argued against this untrue impression from know-nothing fans and the media since Cutler has been in Chicago.

Cutler does not "go through the motions", that is baloney. There was an incident three years ago where Cutler came out of game with knee injury that was unfairly observed and reported, and that bad shake stuck to an extent.

Cutler has many talents and positive qualities. I'd say his shortcoming is in reading defenses and situations. He sometimes gets excited and makes a bad decision. He's not terrible in that regard, but his unreliable poise keeps him from being more than an above average QB.

Let's also not forget, he truly is one of those people who doesn't care how people outside the organization see him. So he doesn't build an image...

[Patler]

On the other hand, ESPN reported this last Spring:


At least 10 former Chicago Bears staffers from the Lovie Smith and Marc Trestman regimes said recently they believe the team can't consistently compete for championships as long as it fields a lineup with Jay Cutler under center.

.......

Two teammates, who also asked to remain anonymous for this story, characterized Cutler as a divisive figure with whom they'd rather not continue to play.

[Patler]

With Cutler, it is more than his nonchalant appearance. Recall when he was in Denver, and they blew a three game lead in the last four games of the year (or whatever it was), he threw an interception returned for a long TD sealing the loss near the end of the Last game (I think). He turned and walked casually toward the sidelines as the DB ran between him and the sidelines, just a short distance from him. Cutler gave no effort to stop the TD in a very close game which could have guaranteed a playoff spot. Denver fans went ballistic after that game. I was in Denver just a few weeks later, and they were still talking about his lack of effort.

Dancing at a club (reportedly) the night of the loss to the Packers in the playoff game he was too hurt to play in doesn't scream of competitiveness either, regardless of what medical excuses there were. It's a wrong image to present to his team mates, and speaks to his leadership qualities.

There are many myths surrounding Cutler, and I think a burning desire to win might be one of them.

[mraynrand]

You are repeating a 100% myth. Cutler has exceptional heart and toughness. His "demeanor" is just how he looks, nothing more. The Bears players have argued against this untrue impression from know-nothing fans and the media since Cutler has been in Chicago.

Cutler does not "go through the motions", that is baloney. There was an incident three years ago where Cutler came out of game with knee injury that was unfairly observed and reported, and that bad shake stuck to an extent.

Cutler has many talents and positive qualities. I'd say his shortcoming is in reading defenses and situations. He sometimes gets excited and makes a bad decision. He's not terrible in that regard, but his unreliable poise keeps him from being more than an above average QB.

I think this is pretty accurate. There's something else there, though, a body-language/demeanor that makes him look like he doesn't give a shit. And an attitudinal difference I suggested previously.

Plus, he's played on some bad teams; I'm sure some of that's his fault.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Brett Favre didn't care about winning because he drank, was addicted to drugs, and chased tail late into the night. Also, two teammates told a reporter anonymously that he's a cancer. Ignore all the statements of support, listen to the smears.

There are many myths surrounding Favre, and I think a burning desire to win might be one of them.

[Patler]

Brett Favre didn't care about winning because he drank, was addicted to drugs, and chased tail late into the night. Also, two teammates told a reporter anonymously that he's a cancer. Ignore all the statements of support, listen to the smears.

There are many myths surrounding Favre, and I think a burning desire to win might be one of them.

Favre's play on the field spoke differently. Cutler's often has not.

[Patler]

Also, two teammates told a reporter anonymously that he's a cancer. Ignore all the statements of support, listen to the smears.


Do you have support for your statement about Favre's team mates?
I merely provided a quote from an ESPN article as substance for a discussions.
It appears that your are simply making up things for some reason.

I suppose in your world 10 staff members of Favres former coaches also questioned the Packers ability to win with Favre, too, huh?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Favre's play on the field spoke differently. Cutler's often has not.

Favre was not better than Cutler because he wanted to win more, or was of higher character. I expect they both are similarly competitive.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I suppose in your world 10 staff members of Favres former coaches also questioned the Packers ability to win with Favre, too, huh?

Of course not, Favre was a more talented player.

[Patler]

Favre was not better than Cutler because he wanted to win more, or was of higher character. I expect they both are similarly competitive.

My comments related nothing at all to who was better, or more successful.

What I was referring to was that Favre consistently exhibited a highly competitive nature on the field. Cutler has not always shown that. When you couple that with perhaps questionable leadership qualities on and off the field, you have OC's and other coaches questioning the teams ability to win consistently with Cutler. I don't recall many questions about Favre's competitiveness, or leadership qualities. Those questions have followed Cutler since early in his career in Denver.

[Zool]

My own .02, Cutler absolutely has a "fuck it" mode that he hits when adversity strikes him or the team. To say he doesn't is to not have watched him play much. Things start going south and he starts heaving up prayers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What I was referring to was that Favre consistently exhibited a highly competitive nature on the field. Cutler has not always shown that.

I strongly disagree, Cutler is a fighter. You are biased by not liking the guy.

[Patler]

I strongly disagree, Cutler is a fighter. You are biased by not liking the guy.

That's ridiculous. I don't even know the guy. Why would I dislike him?
(I suppose I could have responded by saying you are biased by liking the guy?)



Let's leave it to the words of an expert, a professional commentator who, in his words, "spent countless hours analyzing the body language of every team's signal caller following an interception to compose these rankings." (I'll leave off the next sentence of the quote because it doesn't support my premise.) From theScore's Michael Amato's ranking of QB reactions to throwing interceptions:
http://www.thescore.com/news/783630


6. Jay Cutler, Bears

https://d13csqd2kn0ewr.cloudfront.net/uploads/image/file/118934/cropped_USPW_400117.jpg?ts=1434850185

This classic Cutler look follows almost every interception he throws. His eyes say he doesn't care, but his body language says he really doesn't care.

[mraynrand]

http://www.successpath.info/images/01_vi.jpg

Tonya Reiman says my body language right now reads "Screw you all"

I'd like to get a better assessment of Cutler, but I don't have any tea leaves, and I doubt he'd let me examine his poop.

Still, Jay's best non-verbal communication:

http://www.chicitysports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jay-cutler-middle-finger2.jpg

[Pugger]

You are repeating a 100% myth. Cutler has exceptional heart and toughness. His "demeanor" is just how he looks, nothing more. The Bears players have argued against this untrue impression from know-nothing fans and the media since Cutler has been in Chicago.

Cutler does not "go through the motions", that is baloney. There was an incident three years ago where Cutler came out of game with knee injury that was unfairly observed and reported, and that bad shake stuck to an extent.

Cutler has many talents and positive qualities. I'd say his shortcoming is in reading defenses and situations. He sometimes gets excited and makes a bad decision. He's not terrible in that regard, but his unreliable poise keeps him from being more than an above average QB.

You seem to be in the minority here. How come most Bears fans - who see his every game - have had their full of him? My BIL is a big bear fan and he is so ready for a new signal caller it is ridiculous. How come Jay Cutler, who you say is a warrior with a huge desire to win, has only had one winning season as a starting QB since high school? Is that his coaches and teammates fault but not his? How come Denver traded him away? If he was everything you say he is teams just don't ship franchise QBs like him away to another club. There is something seriously lacking in a guy with this much physical talent.

[Bossman641]

I also think the Cutler "doesn't care" thing is a load of crap. He's gotten hurt twice now when chasing down INT's that were ultimately returned for TD's. IMO his problems are poor footwork and inability or unwillingness to read coverage. I've never seen a guy throw so many INT's that never even had a chance to get to a receiver.

He cares about football, but he doesn't care about what others think about him. That's why so many teammates speak out about him. He's not your normal pump up/inspire the team leader that the QB is supposed to be.

[Patler]

There is a presumption that every professional athlete has a burning passion for the sport he plays. A presumption that he couldn't possibly get to where he is if he wasn't ultra-competitive. That isn't always the case. Just as some "regular folks" stay in jobs they don't particularly enjoy because they want the paycheck, some athletes play because the money is darned good, and they don't really have anything else to go to. Winning is nice, but it doesn't consume them.

I don't know if Cutler eats and breathes football, or if he neatly compartmentalizes to his time "on the job". I don't know if he can't wait for the season to start, or if he dreads the start of yet another. I have no idea if he would play for nothing. or if he plays only because he earns millions. I have no idea if he inspires those around him, or if he alienates them. I have no idea if he agonizes over losses or his bad performances, or simple sees them as part of his job, to be forgotten quickly. But I do know there are more negative reports about him from current and former players/teammates, coaches, analysts, broadcasters and writers than about any other "franchise quaterback" I can think of.

Ask yourself how successful the Packers would have been since Favre if all was the same except they had Cutler instead of Rodgers? What about the Bears with Rodgers instead of Cutler? Might the team successes be virtually reversed?

[pbmax]

Patler, can you give me any details about that INT Cutler failed to chase after? Year, opponent or something?

Looking at Bronco losing streaks during his tenure isn't doing it. :)

[pbmax]

You seem to be in the minority here. How come most Bears fans - who see his every game - have had their full of him? My BIL is a big bear fan and he is so ready for a new signal caller it is ridiculous. How come Jay Cutler, who you say is a warrior with a huge desire to win, has only had one winning season as a starting QB since high school? Is that his coaches and teammates fault but not his? How come Denver traded him away? If he was everything you say he is teams just don't ship franchise QBs like him away to another club. There is something seriously lacking in a guy with this much physical talent.

Well, Denver traded him away because they hired a tin pot dictator who thought he sprung out of Belichick's forehead fully formed as a successful NFL head coach. He might have wanted a different QB (though perhaps not) and managed to bungle the situation badly enough that he was left with Kyle Orton and Tebow.

Wins are a terrible way to measure the effectiveness of a QB. Some of Cutler's teams have been brutal. But he commits enough conventional errors that his talent is all but neutralized.

[mraynrand]

Ask yourself how successful the Packers would have been since Favre if all was the same except they had Cutler instead of Rodgers? What about the Bears with Rodgers instead of Cutler? Might the team successes be virtually reversed?

Packers would be very very good, but maybe not exceptional and no Superbowl. Bears would suck rocks/be about the same Why? Because of the organization, TT, and Stubby versus Chicago's pile of crap.

That is, I doubt Stubby could coach away that whatever attitude of Cutler's and I doubt Rodgers' fire could compensate for Chicago's organizational dysfunction.

[sharpe1027]

Maybe he doesn't not care what people think, but from all accounts that includes not caring what his teammates think. Even assuming his body language and demeanor are "just the way he looks," that's still what his teammates see. You can't tell me it doesn't piss some of them off to see him sulking around the way he does.

If he was concerned about how his attitude affected his teammates, he could have shown some enthusiasm and fire. I'm not talking Jim Schwartz crazy, but just enough to let everyone know he gives a damn. In short, I think Harlan is right, he doesn't care.

Then again, this mostly just speculation. The facts are that many people have that impression of him, and his play is erratic and not consistent enough to be a top QB.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You seem to be in the minority here. How come most Bears fans - who see his every game - have had their full of him?

Nobody wants a QB who doesn't seem capable of taking the team to promised land, he's not good enough. When he's on a winning streak, fans are fine with him.

When Philip Rivers is loosing, he's a jerk on wheels. When he wins - firey competitor.

[Patler]

Patler, can you give me any details about that INT Cutler failed to chase after? Year, opponent or something?

Looking at Bronco losing streaks during his tenure isn't doing it. :)

I don't recall the play myself, just my conversations with Bronco fans who all complained a lot about it. I am fairly certain it would have been 2008. when they gave up a three game lead with three games left (or whatever). While I have been in Denver in the Spring for quite a few years, I think the Bronco fans complaining about it was the same year we discussed the trade to Chicago, which by and large most were pleased with.

[Patler]

Ask yourself how successful the Packers would have been since Favre if all was the same except they had Cutler instead of Rodgers? What about the Bears with Rodgers instead of Cutler? Might the team successes be virtually reversed?

Packers would be very very good, but maybe not exceptional and no Superbowl. Bears would suck rocks/be about the same Why? Because of the organization, TT, and Stubby versus Chicago's pile of crap.

That is, I doubt Stubby could coach away that whatever attitude of Cutler's and I doubt Rodgers' fire could compensate for Chicago's organizational dysfunction.

I don't know, I wonder. Considering the Bears got to the NFCCG with Cutler, and lost to the Packers for the right to go to the SB, it is not a stretch to think that with Rodgers the Bears would have gone to the SB and would have beaten the Steelers, just as GB did.

On the other hand, maybe Rodgers wouldn't be the Rodgers we know today without the influence of MM and Clements in his early NFL years.

[Pugger]

I don't know, I wonder. Considering the Bears got to the NFCCG with Cutler, and lost to the Packers for the right to go to the SB, it is not a stretch to think that with Rodgers the Bears would have gone to the SB and would have beaten the Steelers, just as GB did.

On the other hand, maybe Rodgers wouldn't be the Rodgers we know today without the influence of MM and Clements in his early NFL years.

I really think MM and Clements had a big role in molding Rodgers into the fabulous QB we see today.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I also think the Cutler "doesn't care" thing is a load of crap. He's gotten hurt twice now when chasing down INT's that were ultimately returned for TD's. IMO his problems are poor footwork and inability or unwillingness to read coverage. I've never seen a guy throw so many INT's that never even had a chance to get to a receiver.

He cares about football, but he doesn't care about what others think about him. That's why so many teammates speak out about him. He's not your normal pump up/inspire the team leader that the QB is supposed to be.

I agree. The dude is tough. He takes a lot of brutal hits and plays. He chases after interception returns. When things are going bad, he tends to go in f* it mode though.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So, who would you rather have if you had to pick one QB:

Stafford or Cutler?

[hoosier]

So, who would you rather have if you had to pick one QB:

Stafford or Cutler?

Stafford, but admittedly my choice is influenced by the fact that I only watch the Bears when they play the Packers and Cutler seems to save his worst games, or at least his worst throws, for Green Bay games. As I see it this is pretty much a wash: while both are talented each one has his warts and neither one is a franchise QB. The only way a team is going to be able to do anything worthwhile with either of them as QB is by putting together a very good defense, and in that case I would rather have the QB who makes fewer mistakes, and I think that is Stafford.

[sharpe1027]

So, who would you rather have if you had to pick one QB:

Stafford or Cutler?

Starting today? Probably Stafford. I would be banking on him getting a second wind if given a shot somewhere else. I would not be interested in either for the long term.

[mraynrand]

I don't know, I wonder. Considering the Bears got to the NFCCG with Cutler, and lost to the Packers for the right to go to the SB, it is not a stretch to think that with Rodgers the Bears would have gone to the SB and would have beaten the Steelers, just as GB did.

On the other hand, maybe Rodgers wouldn't be the Rodgers we know today without the influence of MM and Clements in his early NFL years.

I said the Bears would be about the same/suck. They have been both - they've had some very good years and they've sucked. Lovie was a defensive guy - and Trestman was brought in to turn that around. he did; now the defense is in shambles and the offense is stocked. Mix in some injuries and the loss of Marshall and that too falls apart.

I agree with your second part. Rodgers of course gets individual credit, but there was a lot of institutional development.

In a straight physical matchup, Cutler wins over Rodgers, but not by much. Both are elite QBs physically. Rodgers has had the advantage of a better 'adversity setting' and a better organization.

[mraynrand]

So, who would you rather have if you had to pick one QB:

Stafford or Cutler?

I don't know if anyone can cure Stafford's flaws, especially in footwork. Cutler has a higher performance ceiling, but he seems more mentally fragile than Stafford. I'd pick Stafford based only on the idea that I believe Cutler is a jerk and attitudinally flawed at the extremes. If that's false, I'd take Cutler and work on his psychology.

[sharpe1027]

I said the Bears would be about the same/suck. They have been both - they've had some very good years and they've sucked. Lovie was a defensive guy - and Trestman was brought in to turn that around. he did; now the defense is in shambles and the offense is stocked. Mix in some injuries and the loss of Marshall and that too falls apart.

I agree with your second part. Rodgers of course gets individual credit, but there was a lot of institutional development.

In a straight physical matchup, Cutler wins over Rodgers, but not by much. Both are elite QBs physically. Rodgers has had the advantage of a better 'adversity setting' and a better organization.

Interesting comparison. I would say that Rodgers main physical advantage is with his legs, he is more agile and faster running. I believe that Cutler has a stronger arm by a fair margin (going on reports).

That being said, I would argue that there are diminishing returns on arm strength. All things being equal a little more zip on the ball is generally good, but technique and mental become increasingly more important once you have enough arm strength to make the required throws.

Rodgers has plenty of arm strength.

[Smidgeon]

There was only one year going into the year that I thought Cutler had put it together enough to worry about him as the QB in Chicago. It was the year he came to camp in shape, no longer sporting his neck fat. That was when I knew he had upped his devotion to conditioning in the offseason and was probably ready to go on a tear. But I don't think it worked out that way (unless that was the NFCC game year).

But I don't remember anyone writing anything about it, pointing out how he reshaped his body, etc, etc, like they do other players. The media isn't kind to Cutler, but none of that is to say that I think Cutler's given a bad rap. He doesn't reach his own potential, but he's also been on some notoriously awful teams, so it splits both ways.

[Pugger]

Starting today? Probably Stafford. I would be banking on him getting a second wind if given a shot somewhere else. I would not be interested in either for the long term.

I might choose Stafford too. He could be fixed with some decent coaching.

[Pugger]

I said the Bears would be about the same/suck. They have been both - they've had some very good years and they've sucked. Lovie was a defensive guy - and Trestman was brought in to turn that around. he did; now the defense is in shambles and the offense is stocked. Mix in some injuries and the loss of Marshall and that too falls apart.

I agree with your second part. Rodgers of course gets individual credit, but there was a lot of institutional development.

In a straight physical matchup, Cutler wins over Rodgers, but not by much. Both are elite QBs physically. Rodgers has had the advantage of a better 'adversity setting' and a better organization.

Rodgers is also a better leader IMO. He can make those around him better whereas I don't think Cutler has ever done that.

[Fritz]

http://www.successpath.info/images/01_vi.jpg

Tonya Reiman says my body language right now reads "Screw you all"


I'd like to get a better assessment of Cutler, but I don't have any tea leaves, and I doubt he'd let me examine his poop.

Still, Jay's best non-verbal communication:

http://www.chicitysports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/jay-cutler-middle-finger2.jpg


If Tonya Reiman were reading my body language right now, she'd know by certain telltale signs that I'd like to, uh do things with her and to her.

[yetisnowman]

They are both loser choke artists. Cutler 1-11 vs his biggest rival and class of the division, 14 tds 21 ints. Stafford is 3-32 against teams that finished the season with a winning record and 0-18 against winning teams on the road. Think about that. He has played 6 1/2 seasons and never beaten a good team on the road. They both have basically the two strongest arms in the league, but they have mush between the ears. It's not simply organizational. This stuff is cyclical. It's no coincidence these bad-mediocre qbs play for a bunch of different coaches/gms. People like to make excuses for these guys, sort of like Andrew Luck now. The bottom line is they have had talent around them, but you can always count on them to make devastating mental/physical errors when it matters the most.

[pbmax]

I don't even know the point of fielding the other 10 players anymore on offense. Its so obvious that Wins and Losses are entirely the responsibility of the QB that devoting cap space to other positions, other than the minimum to keep in compliance with cap and league rules is clearly a mistake.

And don't get me started on coaching and front office positions. They are fungible and anyone with half a brain could construct a winner org and coaching staff.

No excuses. Just look what Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassell, Mike Vick and Landry Jones have done for the Cowboys and Steelers. Its obvious that the team and organization around the player don't matter.

[yetisnowman]

I don't even know the point of fielding the other 10 players anymore on offense. Its so obvious that Wins and Losses are entirely the responsibility of the QB that devoting cap space to other positions, other than the minimum to keep in compliance with cap and league rules is clearly a mistake.

And don't get me started on coaching and front office positions. They are fungible and anyone with half a brain could construct a winner org and coaching staff.

No excuses. Just look what Brandon Weeden, Matt Cassell, Mike Vick and Landry Jones have done for the Cowboys and Steelers. Its obvious that the team and organization around the player don't matter.

Well it's good to know you are an equal opportunity qb apologist.:-)

[pbmax]

Well it's good to know you are an equal opportunity qb apologist.:-)

I just don't think there is any point in reducing Stafford or Cutler down to the dregs of QB starters in the NFL. There are so many, many, horribly worse QBs that could be cited as franchise killers.

Stafford and Cutler are too talented to be mixed in with Brian Hoyer. And I think its too easy to simply call them headcases. Both might be lost causes, but that is partially a result of terrible organizations.

Think back to Rodger in 2008. He started his summer off by telling Packer fans off (jump on bandwagon or give up). That huge, preventable mistake was immediately eclipsed by Favre's Hamlet routine. And given his play in some of 2008, Rodgers was lucky that was the case. If he had told people to R-E-L-A-X, he would have been run out of town. He only seems calm and composed now because he and his team have experienced success. If they had bowed out of the 2010 playoffs with Bishop whiffing on Westbrook, people would still be screaming that he is a loser who doesn't throw INTs because he is a stats first guy and not a winner.

[sharpe1027]

PB, you have a very valid point. I would add that it is a lot easier to be seen as a leader and to be well regarded by teammates and fans when you are winning.

[yetisnowman]

I just don't think there is any point in reducing Stafford or Cutler down to the dregs of QB starters in the NFL. There are so many, many, horribly worse QBs that could be cited as franchise killers.

Stafford and Cutler are too talented to be mixed in with Brian Hoyer. And I think its too easy to simply call them headcases. Both might be lost causes, but that is partially a result of terrible organizations.

Think back to Rodger in 2008. He started his summer off by telling Packer fans off (jump on bandwagon or give up). That huge, preventable mistake was immediately eclipsed by Favre's Hamlet routine. And given his play in some of 2008, Rodgers was lucky that was the case. If he had told people to R-E-L-A-X, he would have been run out of town. He only seems calm and composed now because he and his team have experienced success. If they had bowed out of the 2010 playoffs with Bishop whiffing on Westbrook, people would still be screaming that he is a loser who doesn't throw INTs because he is a stats first guy and not a winner.


No they aren't the dregs of the NFL, but they are as much of a franchise killer qb as a qb can be. Because they have huge contracts and guaranteed money, and every year the team has to trot out the"he's our guy" spiel. They are viable enough to be out there and make plays from time to time, but they are not winners. So your team is stuck being bad to mediocre until their contract runs out or they get lucky enough to find a replacement that excels. It's limbo for an NFL franchise. I assure Bears fans are more frustrated than say Texans fans because they feel so stuck.

Again I think the underachieving qbs make the organizational mistakes much more glaring. Great qb play glosses over so much in the NFL. And when I look at the rosters these guys have had, I see a lot of talent. Wonder what A-Rod could have done with Marshall, Jeffrey, Bennett, and Forte?

And I am as hard on A-Rod as anyone can be...and if not for the run in 2010, I would be relentless in how doesn't come up big in big moments. But the thing is, from 2008 on he improved every year and kept getting better. And that coincided with the team's upward trajectory. Sort of amazing that Aaron's worst season is significantly better than any season Cutler has had, statistically speaking.

In summary the primary reason the Packers have dominated the division is because of the gap in qb play. Not the GMs, or the drafts, or the talent around them. Aaron has been more effective and efficient than Cutler/Stafford, and that is the difference between winning and losing in this league most of the time.

[pbmax]

I agree that the salaries of Cutler and Stafford are problematic. However, they are inevitable and predicable for anyone deemed capable of leading an offense well. It makes the squandering of their rookie deals look like a worse crime year by year.

Developing talent (not importing expensive FAs) and having consistent coaching are the antidote.

How many top QBs have survived turmoil in the front office and coaching staff? Look at Luck compared to Wilson.

Brady, Manning (both), Brees, Rodgers, Rothliesberger (two OCs) all have stable situations. Even Andy Dalton has survived. The only definitely above average QB I can think of who has survived turmoil is Phillip Rivers.

[yetisnowman]

I agree that the salaries of Cutler and Stafford are problematic. However, they are inevitable and predicable for anyone deemed capable of leading an offense well. It makes the squandering of their rookie deals look like a worse crime year by year.

Developing talent (not importing expensive FAs) and having consistent coaching are the antidote.

How many top QBs have survived turmoil in the front office and coaching staff? Look at Luck compared to Wilson.

Brady, Manning (both), Brees, Rodgers, Rothliesberger (two OCs) all have stable situations. Even Andy Dalton has survived. The only definitely above average QB I can think of who has survived turmoil is Phillip Rivers.


Sort of a chicken or the egg thing....I would argue that unstable qb/offensive production often leads to unstable coaching/gm situations. It's not a coincidence. Hell, some people speculate that re-signing Cutler to that massive contract is what got Phil Emery fired.

[hoosier]

I just don't think there is any point in reducing Stafford or Cutler down to the dregs of QB starters in the NFL. There are so many, many, horribly worse QBs that could be cited as franchise killers.

Stafford and Cutler are too talented to be mixed in with Brian Hoyer. And I think its too easy to simply call them headcases. Both might be lost causes, but that is partially a result of terrible organizations.

Think back to Rodger in 2008. He started his summer off by telling Packer fans off (jump on bandwagon or give up). That huge, preventable mistake was immediately eclipsed by Favre's Hamlet routine. And given his play in some of 2008, Rodgers was lucky that was the case. If he had told people to R-E-L-A-X, he would have been run out of town. He only seems calm and composed now because he and his team have experienced success. If they had bowed out of the 2010 playoffs with Bishop whiffing on Westbrook, people would still be screaming that he is a loser who doesn't throw INTs because he is a stats first guy and not a winner.

Westbrook = Jackson

[Patler]

Think back to Rodger in 2008. He started his summer off by telling Packer fans off (jump on bandwagon or give up). That huge, preventable mistake was immediately eclipsed by Favre's Hamlet routine. And given his play in some of 2008, Rodgers was lucky that was the case. If he had told people to R-E-L-A-X, he would have been run out of town. He only seems calm and composed now because he and his team have experienced success. If they had bowed out of the 2010 playoffs with Bishop whiffing on Westbrook, people would still be screaming that he is a loser who doesn't throw INTs because he is a stats first guy and not a winner.

Some of his play 2008? He had a game here and there that wasn't good by his standards, but he had 8 games with QBRs above 100, four more above 80. He engineered 3 or 4 comebacks, only to have defense or special teams give it right back at the end of the game. Rodgers year end QBR of 93.8 was higher than any that Cutler has ever had. Rodgers 4,038 yards in 2008 were more than Cutler has had in any year other than his own 2008 when he had 4,526. Cutler hasn't even hit 3900 since then. Rodgers 28 TDs in 2008 were more than Cutler has ever had, except 2014 when Cutler had 28, too. Rodgers' 13 interceptions in 2008 were fewer than Cutler has had in any year except 2013 when Cutler had 12, but played only 11 games; 2011 whenhe had 7 in 10 games and 2006 when he played only 5 games.

Basically, Rodgers first year, his worst year, was better than any year Cutler has had, and Rodger did that on a team that was 6-10 with a bad defense and bad special teams.

[pbmax]

Some of his play 2008? He had a game here and there that wasn't good by his standards, but he had 8 games with QBRs above 100, four more above 80. He engineered 3 or 4 comebacks, only to have defense or special teams give it right back at the end of the game. Rodgers year end QBR of 93.8 was higher than any that Cutler has ever had. Rodgers 4,038 yards in 2008 were more than Cutler has had in any year other than his own 2008 when he had 4,526. Cutler hasn't even hit 3900 since then. Rodgers 28 TDs in 2008 were more than Cutler has ever had, except 2014 when Cutler had 28, too. Rodgers' 13 interceptions in 2008 were fewer than Cutler has had in any year except 2013 when Cutler had 12, but played only 11 games; 2011 whenhe had 7 in 10 games and 2006 when he played only 5 games.

Basically, Rodgers first year, his worst year, was better than any year Cutler has had, and Rodger did that on a team that was 6-10 with a bad defense and bad special teams.

I am pretty sure some of his play is covered by a game here or there what was not good by his standards. But if that is not enough, how about the season ending funk, losing 7 of 9? And while 28 Tds versus 13 INTs was by non-Brady standards marvelous, he wasn't exactly lighting up down the field with what I think was his lowest YPA as a starter. So at times he looked like a completion machine that didn't generate scoring opportunities in difficult situations.

This very board was worried about his ability to stay calm in the pocket (remember happy feet?), being too quick to take off and not go to the check down guy too early. Even in 2009, it wasn't until the Dallas game at Lambeau that the team's offense looked settled in for the long haul.

But mostly my point was that plenty of doubt was still left about Rodgers and the Packers in 2008. The team was 6-10. If the team had fired Ted and M3 after dumping Favre (a very believable scenario in almost any other city), what would have happened to Rodgers? The point is not that he matched Cutler's performance, but at critical moments of his career, the team has been solid, and solidly behind him.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I remember early on here that we knocked Rodgers as being injury prone and made of porcelain. :oops:

[Patler]

PB:
There is always some uncertainty about a new starting QB, but Rodgers showed enough that the Packers took the unusual step of redoing his contract about half way through the season, when he still had a year and a half on his rookie contract. There were things to improve (I remember holding the ball too long more than "happy feet"), and he had yet to prove himself in big games, but that is because he had not had the opportunity.

As for the 6-10 record, as I wrote, he had engineered something like 3 or 4 late game comebacks only to have the defense or ST give it back immediately, in almost unbelievable rapid form. I think Crosby missed a game-winning FG in one.

I disagree with your suggestion that TT or MM could have been on thin ice. Put the Packers situation in any other city, and I doubt eother MM or TT would have been in any trouble at all after 2008 for their Favre/Rodgers decision. Rodgers showed plenty enough in 2008 that their decision looked solid, long term.

[Patler]

I remember early on here that we knocked Rodgers as being injury prone and made of porcelain. :oops:

Still concerns me some.

[Fritz]

So, who would you rather have if you had to pick one QB:

Stafford or Cutler?


They're both pretty easy to pick, especially in crucial moments of a game.

[Pugger]

No they aren't the dregs of the NFL, but they are as much of a franchise killer qb as a qb can be. Because they have huge contracts and guaranteed money, and every year the team has to trot out the"he's our guy" spiel. They are viable enough to be out there and make plays from time to time, but they are not winners. So your team is stuck being bad to mediocre until their contract runs out or they get lucky enough to find a replacement that excels. It's limbo for an NFL franchise. I assure Bears fans are more frustrated than say Texans fans because they feel so stuck.

Again I think the underachieving qbs make the organizational mistakes much more glaring. Great qb play glosses over so much in the NFL. And when I look at the rosters these guys have had, I see a lot of talent. Wonder what A-Rod could have done with Marshall, Jeffrey, Bennett, and Forte?

And I am as hard on A-Rod as anyone can be...and if not for the run in 2010, I would be relentless in how doesn't come up big in big moments. But the thing is, from 2008 on he improved every year and kept getting better. And that coincided with the team's upward trajectory. Sort of amazing that Aaron's worst season is significantly better than any season Cutler has had, statistically speaking.

In summary the primary reason the Packers have dominated the division is because of the gap in qb play. Not the GMs, or the drafts, or the talent around them. Aaron has been more effective and efficient than Cutler/Stafford, and that is the difference between winning and losing in this league most of the time.

With the physical talent that both Cutler and Stafford have they should be performing better than they have. Rodgers and other elite QBs have a special je ne sais quoi that is lacking in so many QBs in this league.

[Pugger]

PB:
There is always some uncertainty about a new starting QB, but Rodgers showed enough that the Packers took the unusual step of redoing his contract about half way through the season, when he still had a year and a half on his rookie contract. There were things to improve (I remember holding the ball too long more than "happy feet"), and he had yet to prove himself in big games, but that is because he had not had the opportunity.

As for the 6-10 record, as I wrote, he had engineered something like 3 or 4 late game comebacks only to have the defense or ST give it back immediately, in almost unbelievable rapid form. I think Crosby missed a game-winning FG in one.

I disagree with your suggestion that TT or MM could have been on thin ice. Put the Packers situation in any other city, and I doubt eother MM or TT would have been in any trouble at all after 2008 for their Favre/Rodgers decision. Rodgers showed plenty enough in 2008 that their decision looked solid, long term.

Yes, Rodgers showed so much that Ted and MM were willing to endure the firestorm of moving on with him even after Favre wanted to return.

[pbmax]

PB:
There is always some uncertainty about a new starting QB, but Rodgers showed enough that the Packers took the unusual step of redoing his contract about half way through the season, when he still had a year and a half on his rookie contract. There were things to improve (I remember holding the ball too long more than "happy feet"), and he had yet to prove himself in big games, but that is because he had not had the opportunity.

As for the 6-10 record, as I wrote, he had engineered something like 3 or 4 late game comebacks only to have the defense or ST give it back immediately, in almost unbelievable rapid form. I think Crosby missed a game-winning FG in one.

I disagree with your suggestion that TT or MM could have been on thin ice. Put the Packers situation in any other city, and I doubt eother MM or TT would have been in any trouble at all after 2008 for their Favre/Rodgers decision. Rodgers showed plenty enough in 2008 that their decision looked solid, long term.

I am not trying to prove a direct equivalency between Rodgers and Cutler in their first year starting. Only that Rodgers in 2008 was unproven and he did not have the kind of season he has become well known for. He faced some criticism for his decision making, his durability (the article I just looked up about his contract extension noted he had been playing with a sprained shoulder) and his pocket presence.

I am trying to point out that under slightly different circumstances, Ted and Mike could easily have been in trouble. With a different front office structure or ownership, they could have been in jeopardy for choosing Rodgers over Favre and finishing with a 6-10 season. Remember the criticism of McCarthy and (esp.) Ted's record compared to Sherman? Tank wasn't the only person making that case in 2008.

I think it easily imaginable that another owner or Team President would have sacked someone and then ask the successor to improve things. Had that happened, I don't think Rodgers career looks the same.

To bring it around to the original point, Cutler and Stafford didn't even have the continuity of Joe Flacco, who has had several OC's but the same HC and GM for his entire career. So I can't agree to consign them the franchise killer status given their circumstances. Although yeti makes a solid point that their potential becomes more of a liability as they get older and more expensive.

[Pugger]

They're both pretty easy to pick, especially in crucial moments of a game.

:rs:

[Cheesehead Craig]

They're both pretty easy to pick, especially in crucial moments of a game.

And there's your winning answer right there. Well done, sir. Your prize: Drew Berrymore's undying love and devotion.

[Patler]

I am trying to point out that under slightly different circumstances, Ted and Mike could easily have been in trouble. With a different front office structure or ownership, they could have been in jeopardy for choosing Rodgers over Favre and finishing with a 6-10 season. Remember the criticism of McCarthy and (esp.) Ted's record compared to Sherman? Tank wasn't the only person making that case in 2008.

I think it easily imaginable that another owner or Team President would have sacked someone and then ask the successor to improve things. Had that happened, I don't think Rodgers career looks the same.


That is precisely what I disagree with the most. Rodgers wasn't a finished product in 2008, no 1st year starter is. But I think Rodgers did enough to justify the bosses' decision, regardless of the owner or team location.

[swede]

I remember early on here that we knocked Rodgers as being injury prone and made of porcelain. :oops:

I did...but the first time we sent him in for mop-up duty he promptly broke his foot...that'll get some catcalls.