Cutler to the Bears

[Bossman641]

Where's sexy rexy? I always kinda liked him as a player. Good arm. Knack for the big play and theatrics.

I think you mean knack for the stupid play. He's unsigned.

Didn't specify which team the big play was for :P

You love those kind of guys apparently, Partial... all show and hot air... relateable I guess? :P

Boy, Partial's retardosity is showing a lot in this thread. More than ususal.

So, the Bears signed Cutler. Good pick up, but he isn't a stud, no matter how much Partial slobs on his knob. He still needs WR to throw to and the rest of the team is old and full of holes. I still say the Packers win the division this year.

old and full of holes? how is this different from the Packers?
And go ahead and name all the many holes you speak of.

WR's, safeties, their OL may not be a hole but it is unproven, their defense is still solid but nowhere near the young, attacking guys they were before. A lot of those guys are getting up their in years. Plus, a lot of them have gotten paid and don't seem as hungry as they used to be.

[3irty1]

Seemed like last year teams were cheating on the slant and McCarthy called a lot of slant-n-go routes. I expect we'll see much more of it in the offense this year. I'm not sure how it doesn't play to Rodgers advantages as he seems to have a strong accurate arm and quick release but it definitely plays to the advantages of our WR who all do a great job of exploading out of their cuts and picking up YAC.

[Dabaddestbear]

how are the bears salary cap wise?

could they now make a play for torry holt? or something like that. it would be a short term solution, but it would be a huge upgrade for them

They are very set salary cap wise. And not having to pay a first rounder for two years straight will help the pockets tremendously, not to mention Cutler will only count 1mil against the cap next year!

Many people think they may look to Holt now. It would be nice, but I am not sure. We do have a WR in Bennett that broke all kinds of WR records in the SEC in 2007. And guess who was his QB for one of those season at Vanderbilt....Cutler! He didnt see the field last year because they say he didnt have the playbook down. And plus Lovie just have something against playing rookies unless they are just looking great. The Bears rookie LT last year who got injured in the first couple games last year and sat out the remainder was also the starting LT for Cutler in Vanderbilt.

Like I have told other football fans on here, this is not like the season is about to start tomorrow. We still have the rest of off season to make more stuff happen to build on these recent signings. No matter how one cuts it, the Bears arrow for the upcoming season is looking very good.

[Waldo]

Like I said Rodgers is a good QB, but there was many times that he just threw short passes and his WR's would make a 7 yard slant pass into a 50 yard gain.

Absolutely not true. Most of us were questioning on here what had become of the slant. A staple in the Packers game plan under Favre virtually disappeared last year. Even McCarthy admitted it last year when he was asked how the offense would change with the QB change. He said that the principles of the offense did not change, but the frequency of certain play calls would, because QBs have different strengths on different throws. He then specifically mentioned the short slant, which he said Favre threw better than anyone, but was not a strength for Rodgers. As it turned out, he did not call it nearly as much as in the past.

Rodger's average TD pass was 15.6 yards. In 2007 Favre's average was 25.2 I believe the Packers led the NFL in YAC 2007, but dropped significantly in 2008. Rodgers YAC% in 2008 was 41%, one of the lowest in the NFL. (Favre's in 2008 was 51%). Of 40 QBs rated, only 4 had a lower YAC% than Rodgers in 2008. The receivers even talked about it toward the end of the year, and how they had declined from their performance in 2007.

If you look at "air yards/attempt", the average yardage picked up before the catch, in essence the opposite of YAC, among the 40 QBs rated, Rodgers was tied for 3rd highest average.

Rodgers got his yards on his throws, not on his receivers picking up yardage after the catch.

i was one of those that asked where the slant had gone early on. everything else mentioned here backs-up my play-calling criticism "all we seem to do is run, run, go deep, punt." first-downs weren't getting made, drives were stalling, the short stuff wasn't the main-stay it had been. the true west-coast offense wasn't being used. so the defense was on the field too much and being taken advantage of. that's on MM not rodgers, who i think is very good, but needs experience and will only get better. MM has got to get better!

On virtually every play the defense is attacked at 3 levels. There are either 4 or 5 eligible receivers depending on the protection call. There is almost always a WR deep enough to draw the FS, a WR taking advantage of the FS movement, a WR/TE attacking the intermediate area away form the SS, and a short wide outlet. When and to who the ball is thrown is a function of the presnap read, drop and QB choice. Brett and Aaron read defenses differently. It is not playcalling, it is the passer.

[Partial]

Where's sexy rexy? I always kinda liked him as a player. Good arm. Knack for the big play and theatrics.

I think you mean knack for the stupid play. He's unsigned.

Didn't specify which team the big play was for :P

You love those kind of guys apparently, Partial... all show and hot air... relateable I guess? :P

Boy, Partial's retardosity is showing a lot in this thread. More than ususal.

So, the Bears signed Cutler. Good pick up, but he isn't a stud, no matter how much Partial slobs on his knob. He still needs WR to throw to and the rest of the team is old and full of holes. I still say the Packers win the division this year.

Retardosity? Where? You mean the team that had a better record than the Packers, when adding a franchise quarterback will continue to be better than the Packers? Shocking. Really just truly shocking that one can reason this way. Use your head for something other than at hat rack for a change.

Dude, you're such a homer. The only retard here is you. I see things clearly.

Receivers: No one is saying they're going to have a potent offense, but their are some vet receivers on the market that could help for a year or two. Plus, good QBs make bad receivers look average. I think you're doing a disservice to Cutler and the Bears, the team that the Pack is 1-3 against the past two years before they had a franchise QB.

Mission: Like the way he plays the game. He attacks it without fear. Rex plays the game the way I want my QB to play... except I want my guy to do it better with fewer mistakes. Cutler is probably that exact guy.

[Fritz]

Are you Partially a Bears fan?

[Partial]

Nope, but I can see that they have dominated the Pack the past 3 years, and with our division being so poor, the teams that can win in the division will do fine.

Bears are solid on all three sides of the ball. Packers are solid on O on paper(weren't last season in games), defense has a lot of questions, and will be very solid on ST outside of punter.

[Waldo]

Seemed like last year teams were cheating on the slant and McCarthy called a lot of slant-n-go routes. I expect we'll see much more of it in the offense this year. I'm not sure how it doesn't play to Rodgers advantages as he seems to have a strong accurate arm and quick release but it definitely plays to the advantages of our WR who all do a great job of exploading out of their cuts and picking up YAC.

I don't think so. Aaron is exceptionally good at driving the ball to the the numbers and the sidelines. Our primary slant receiver is declining, our young up and comers are much better on the edges.

And Aaron is incredibly accurate deep in the middle.

Our offense last year was similar to the Matt Ryan offense in a number of ways, but Aaron threw to about 10x as many landmarks as Ryan, and fit the ball in much tighter windows.

[Dabaddestbear]

Where's sexy rexy? I always kinda liked him as a player. Good arm. Knack for the big play and theatrics.

I think you mean knack for the stupid play. He's unsigned.

Didn't specify which team the big play was for :P

You love those kind of guys apparently, Partial... all show and hot air... relateable I guess? :P

Boy, Partial's retardosity is showing a lot in this thread. More than ususal.

So, the Bears signed Cutler. Good pick up, but he isn't a stud, no matter how much Partial slobs on his knob. He still needs WR to throw to and the rest of the team is old and full of holes. I still say the Packers win the division this year.

old and full of holes? how is this different from the Packers?
And go ahead and name all the many holes you speak of.

WR's, safeties, their OL may not be a hole but it is unproven, their defense is still solid but nowhere near the young, attacking guys they were before. A lot of those guys are getting up their in years. Plus, a lot of them have gotten paid and don't seem as hungry as they used to be.

Their O-line last year was still better than the Packers, and only second to the Vikings in the NFC north. They played very well for an patchwork group last year. Adding tackles Pace and Shaffer, and having Williams back now and ready to play will only help.

The defense is not as old as you may think. The D-line is pretty young, the DB's are VERY young, and outside of Briggs and Urlacher the linebackers are up and coming.

But I do agree that some people they paid big time have lacked since then. Namely Vasher and Harris. Harris will be back to form with the new D-line coordinator, Vasher I am not so sure about. But the young backup outperformed him last year anyway.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Honestly, yards after catch totals were down considerably for the Packers in 2008. Looking at the percentage of YAC yardage to total passing yardage, only 3 of 40 QBs had a lower percentage than Rodgers. Rodgers had the 4th highest average of "air yards" per attempt. The receivers did not add as much yardage to Rodgers totals as most other QBs got from their receivers.

Interesting. This is something I did not know. I never bought into Partial's game manager statements on Rodgers, and this and the fact he was one of the better QBs on deep throws, seems to shed new light on it. Rodgers didn't get his yards by throwing short throws and having his receivers gain massive yardage. That was 2007. Apparently, in 2008 the Packers got much more of their passing yards from the distance of the throws and not the yac.

[Gunakor]

Nope, but I can see that they have dominated the Pack the past 3 years.

They were a missed FG away from being 0-2 against us last year, remember? If each quarter was it's own football game, we'd have gone 7-1 against the Bears last season. They didn't dominate us last year. For the first 105 minutes of our rivalry last season, we dominated them. 37-3 over the first 60. Then they dominated us for the final 15, and ended up winning a football game. Whether your selective memory allows you to comprehend it, in reality this is what happened last season.

[PlantPage55]

Honestly, yards after catch totals were down considerably for the Packers in 2008. Looking at the percentage of YAC yardage to total passing yardage, only 3 of 40 QBs had a lower percentage than Rodgers. Rodgers had the 4th highest average of "air yards" per attempt. The receivers did not add as much yardage to Rodgers totals as most other QBs got from their receivers.

Interesting. This is something I did not know. I never bought into Partial's game manager statements on Rodgers, and this and the fact he was one of the better QBs on deep throws, seems to shed new light on it. Rodgers didn't get his yards by throwing short throws and having his receivers gain massive yardage. That was 2007. Apparently, in 2008 the Packers got much more of their passing yards from the distance of the throws and not the yac.

It doesn't matter. The Bears fan ALREADY ignored the fact that he was proven wrong on that.

[pbmax]

On virtually every play the defense is attacked at 3 levels. There are either 4 or 5 eligible receivers depending on the protection call. There is almost always a WR deep enough to draw the FS, a WR taking advantage of the FS movement, a WR/TE attacking the intermediate area away form the SS, and a short wide outlet. When and to who the ball is thrown is a function of the presnap read, drop and QB choice. Brett and Aaron read defenses differently. It is not playcalling, it is the passer.

Godspeed Waldo, on this point. Because even here, in a safe, sane and intelligent forum, there are no more than 10 people who keep this in mind while looking to place blame on playcalling.

[3irty1]

Seemed like last year teams were cheating on the slant and McCarthy called a lot of slant-n-go routes. I expect we'll see much more of it in the offense this year. I'm not sure how it doesn't play to Rodgers advantages as he seems to have a strong accurate arm and quick release but it definitely plays to the advantages of our WR who all do a great job of exploading out of their cuts and picking up YAC.

I don't think so. Aaron is exceptionally good at driving the ball to the the numbers and the sidelines. Our primary slant receiver is declining, our young up and comers are much better on the edges.

And Aaron is incredibly accurate deep in the middle.

Our offense last year was similar to the Matt Ryan offense in a number of ways, but Aaron threw to about 10x as many landmarks as Ryan, and fit the ball in much tighter windows.

I still think we'll see more slants this year. It only seems natural as the game slows down for Rodgers and his ability to make quick decisions improves. I agree that Driver is most suited to running the slant because of his toughness over the middle, ability to rocket out of his cuts, and freakish YAC ability but all of the Packers other receivers have some of these qualities as well. Plus I'm not convinced that Driver is actually declining yet although you have to think it will happen soon.

[Partial]

Nope, but I can see that they have dominated the Pack the past 3 years.

They were a missed FG away from being 0-2 against us last year, remember? If each quarter was it's own football game, we'd have gone 7-1 against the Bears last season. They didn't dominate us last year. For the first 105 minutes of our rivalry last season, we dominated them. 37-3 over the first 60. Then they dominated us for the final 15, and ended up winning a football game. Whether your selective memory allows you to comprehend it, in reality this is what happened last season.

Unfortunately for you, Gunk, football isn't 7/8 of a game. It's a complete game. The Bears have dominated us for 2 years now, winning 75% of the time against us. I could go further back, but why?

They're 6-2 against us 4 years. Is that not domination of the series recently? I think that it is.

You're the one with the selective memory, choosing to ignore the actual results of the game, and instead debate them with some arbitrary % of the game.