Cutler

[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.

[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.

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.