Boston Radio - Cutler/Cassell

[packers11]

They brought up a very valid point yesterday. I was driving from Rhode Island to Boston and was listening into the radio station and all they do is talk about the Pats. But since the Cutler story was the big news in the NFL, they all brought up a valid point I didn't even think about...

Why didn't the Bears jump over Matt Cassell / Make any offer to the Pats... The radio station and callers were blasting the Bears on how they gave up so much for Cutler, when they could have had someone that was just as good, and could have been acquired for a lot cheaper.

If KC only offered a 2nd for Vrabel and Cassel, Why wouldn't the Bears pony up a little more to secure the deal and not risk the next 2 years of not drafting a playmaker in the first round (potentially setting them back for a few years).

The radio station (WEEI) made a valid point...

Would you rather have ... Cassel/Vrabel , while keeping your two first round draft picks...

Or...

Cutler, with no first rounder for the next two years...

The majority of the station (not biased towards the Bears/Packers) was astonished why the Bears made a move for Cutler and not Cassel...

Thoughts?

[gbgary]

cutler has a track record where cassel is probably more thought of as a one-year-wonder.

[sheepshead]

This is a valid point. Cutler, at least at the moment is a head case. Not saying he wont mature. Our guy did in the 90's. If I was ready to give up the farm, Cassel might have been a better and less costly choice.

[red]

i don't agree at all that cassel is equal to cutler

cassel had a good year, but he did it with one of the most dominate teams of all time built around him. the exact same team that allowed brady to throw for 1,700 td's the season before

[PlantPage55]

i don't agree at all that cassel is equal to cutler

cassel had a good year, but he did it with one of the most dominate teams of all time built around him. the exact same team that allowed brady to throw for 1,700 td's the season before

Exactly. I'm counting on him being totally exposed next year. I have a sticky note to remind me to watch just how good he actually is. My opinion is: not very and I can't believe that GMs were really fooled.

[bobblehead]

i don't agree at all that cassel is equal to cutler

cassel had a good year, but he did it with one of the most dominate teams of all time built around him. the exact same team that allowed brady to throw for 1,700 td's the season before

Yep, Red and I don't always see eye to eye, but a guy who hasn't even played a full season can NEVER compare to a guy who has made a probowl.

Same reason I think for now that you can't put ARod in Cutlers class.

[Patler]

i don't agree at all that cassel is equal to cutler

cassel had a good year, but he did it with one of the most dominate teams of all time built around him. the exact same team that allowed brady to throw for 1,700 td's the season before

Yep, Red and I don't always see eye to eye, but a guy who hasn't even played a full season can NEVER compare to a guy who has made a probowl.

Same reason I think for now that you can't put ARod in Cutlers class.

Cassell hasn't played a full season - technically true, but Brady was injured half way through the first period of the first game. Brady played just two series. Cassell played 15 games, 3.5 quarters. Cutler is no long tooth veteran. He has been the starter only two full seasons and five games.

Does being in a Pro-bowl really have anything to do with it? Is Cutler better than Rivers just because he was in the Pro Bowl and Rivers was not?

category - Cutler/Rivers

attempts - 616/478
completions - 384/312
comp. % - 62.3/65.3
total yards - 4526/4009
yards/att. - 7.3/8.4
Touchdowns - 25/34
interceptions - 18/11

The interesting thing is that Cutler had a 3 game lead over SD with four games to play. In his last 4 games Rivers threw 11 TDs and 1 interception, winning all four. Cutler threw 4 TDs and 5 interceptions, winning just one of four, losing 3 in a row.

The fact that Cutler went to the Pro-Bowl means nothing to me.

[hoosier]

The main problem with this poll is it assumes that what the Chiefs paid for Vrable and Cassell was a price available to just anyone. We know that's not the case, since other teams are known to have offered more than an early 2 for Cassell.

[packers11]

The main problem with this poll is it assumes that what the Chiefs paid for Vrable and Cassell was a price available to just anyone. We know that's not the case, since other teams are known to have offered more than an early 2 for Cassell.

I believe that if they told KC to hold off and the DEN/TB fell through as KC moved on, they could be stuck with $30 million in QB's right now. Too risky. That close with KC, you just have to pull the trigger. The Bears didn't even enter in the bidding...

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Chicago paid a fair price for Cutler. I think Kansas City got a steal with Cassel. I like the KC trade more. Cassel has only one good year while Cutler has two, but I think they are relatively comparable as prospects. I'm one that isn't buying Cassel was only good because of the team.

[texaspackerbacker]

i don't agree at all that cassel is equal to cutler

cassel had a good year, but he did it with one of the most dominate teams of all time built around him. the exact same team that allowed brady to throw for 1,700 td's the season before

Nobody said Cassell was "equal to" Cutler.

The point made was that Cutler minus 2 first round picks compared to Cassell plus Vrabel and a second rounder makes K.C. look like geniuses and the Bears look like fools.

I disagree with Harvey I think it was, who said a K.C. got a bargain and the Bears made a fair deal. I say it's K.C. that made the fair deal, and the Bears overpaid ridiculously.

[pack4to84]

The reason the bears had to over pay was that they had to out do the Redskins. Heard on Chicago radio that the Redskins offered 2 first round, Fifth in 2010 and Campbell. So the bears threw in there 3rd rd in 2010. For not having a star QB in 50 years they had to pull off this trade. That I give them bears credit. Now we will find out if Chicago still destroys QB like they have always done.

[Guiness]

One reason not mentioned that Cutler may have been more attractive than Cassel is because he came with a (low, low, low) contract.

Cassel had to be re-signed, and commanded a king's ransom.

[texaspackerbacker]

Very Good point, Guinness--makes me want to change my vote.

[packrat]

Cutler, Cook, aren't going to be happy with the low contract for long. I was surprised the Bears made the move without solving the contract issue first.