Cutler

[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]

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:

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.