Thread: Comparing Cutler to Campbell...........

Reading that makes me think of Jay Cutler in the same manner as Rex Grossman's "Unleash the Dragon"

I think there's a pretty good chance that Campbell will be playing on Monday night so this article and the video commentary by John Mullin talks about the differences in style between the two.

We signed Campbell for just such a situation as this and I think that it goes without saying that there's an expectation that he can come in and win a ball game in substitution for Cutler. Sunday night was a tough game to come into and get the rhythm he needed to push the ball down the field.

I think he was being overly cautious dumping the ball off but on the other hand Houston wasn't about to give up much of anything deep and there was at least that one throw to Davis that was dropped. Regardless he's gonna need to do more and do it better on Monday night if we expect to win.

There are some negative comments in the video about Campbell not having been as prepared to come in last Sunday as he should have been. I can't say that I totally disagree with that. What do you guys think about that and what needs to be done in practices this week in order to see Campbell operating more effectively. We need points and a dink and dunk passing game won't get that done.

49ers game isn't worth playing Cutler

Why compromise the back end of the schedule by scrambling your starter's eggs even more?

Bears backup quarterback Jason Campbell might be in line for some playing time. (Chris Sweda/Tribune photo / November 15, 2012)

Dan McNeil 12:22 a.m. CST, November 16, 2012


I've heard it suggested that Jason Campbell is the best backup quarterback in this year's NFL — and that maybe the former Raider and Redskin is better than any No. 2 the Bears have ever had.


That's tantamount to the proclamation that Jay Cutler is the best starter in Bears history. One need not squint to see how low the bar previously was set.
But if Lovie Smith thinks Campbell's helmsmanship is as effective as advertised, his decision for Monday night's game in San Francisco should be easy. Campbell starts and Cutler wears civilian clothes. Even if he isn't as wobbly as he was after the Texans' Tim Dobbins laid him out on Soldier Field's soggy, clumpy turf last Sunday night.



The 49ers game is one the Bears weren't supposed to win with Cutler. Why compromise the back end of the schedule by scrambling your starter's eggs even more? Four of the Bears' last six games are against NFC North teams. Those are more meaningful. (I don't agree with his first contention at all. No one believes we can't win the SF game even with Campbell playing QB. But I will have to concede that the NFCN games have more impact on the standings)


Coaches, of course, seldom approach their weekly assignments that way.
Every game is winnable. Every game MUST be won. Even if it means treating human beings like they're equipment.


Thing is, a Bears win at Candlestick Park doesn't get them any closer to New Orleans come February. Recent history illuminates how insignificant home field "advantage" is.

The Giants' road to the Super Bowl last winter was paved by beating the Packers at Lambeau Field and the 49ers in San Francisco.


In January of 2010, Green Bay won three postseason games on the road.
In Philadelphia, Atlanta and, uh-hum, Chicago.


Home field advantage is almost as mythical as "Bear weather." I cringed when Smith alluded to it Wednesday in his news conference — just three days after inclement weather meant nothing for the rough and tumble Midwesterners against a dome team.


Bears coaches and players have intimated they won't scale back on the passing game if Campbell plays. I don't believe them, but I don't find any fault with Campbell liberally sticking the football into the bellies of Matt Forte and Michael Bush, either.


The Bears running game has underwhelmed and it won't improve because of what transpires on the practice fields. The collective bargaining agreement precludes teams from smacking around their own, which is the most proven method to becoming a more physical team.

The Bears haven't been physical enough offensively. Here in Week 11, I'm not sure if Mike Tice's unit has been enough of anything. Save maddening. Here's hoping Smith backs off the pressure this week. A win would be nice, but a loss doesn't threaten the season.


Forget the lights and the national television audience. It's a perfect time to brush up on the offensive fundamentals and get their $3.5 million backup some of the work they haven't requested from him since training camp.


I'm not as head over feet as some others are with Campbell. But I'll wager a week's pay he bests a 16.7 first-half rating and doesn't throw the ball to the 49ers five times.


Special contributor Dan McNeil hosts "The McNeil and Spiegel Show" weekdays from 9 a.m.-1 p.m. on WSCR-AM 670.

The articles I have read have said that Cambell played well. Most everyone on this forum seems to feel the same way.

I am genuinely at a loss (much like I usually am in the stock market). I just saw Cambell in such a different light. I'm not saying I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong, but I really saw it so much different that I don't get it.

What I saw was a QB that went out and started handing off in a running game and did well. He missed a few (no issues with that - they don't give him any reps), hit a REALLY nice deep ball, and then after that IMO, stunk it up.

The reason I say that is that it was like he all of a sudden could not see open players. He had open player SEVERAL times. It was not just once or twice. You are behind in the game, you are going to lose for sure if you don't score. And this is when you take no chances? He was playing like he was protecting a lead. All he did was protect a loss.

He checked down to players that were behind the line of scrimmage several times for a loss when he had open players downfield. It is being said that the Texans took away the long ball and that is why he didn't throw it. Well, they did - for the most part. But I can remember at least twice that guys were totally open and he checked down for a loss. He is a veteran. That should not happen. So ok, anyone can miss an open player sometimes. But several times? A veteran of 70+ games? And for losses? When you HAVE to take a shot to have a chance to win? Sorry, I don't get how he played a good game.

I felt his decisions were poor, and his ability to see open players was poor. He can make throws. We all know that and saw that, but it's immaterial. You can have Joe Montana back there and if he decides he he is going to check down multiple times for losses, his abilities become immaterial. So I know he can do it, but that doesn't matter to me as much as what he chooses to do. And even more important, if this is the way he is going to continue to play. If so, I don't car how many games he has won, how similar his stats are to Cutler, or anything else about him. If he continues to make those kind of decisions and plays, we won't win with him. It will have to be the defense.

I'm not going to judge Campbell much on the Sunday night game. If you look at his whole body of work, he's a fairly decent starting QB, and certainly an above average 2nd string QB. I don't expect him to be great, but I think he'll be OK. To be honest, I'm more worried about Tice calling a decent game, and about our WR's dropping balls they should be catching, TE's who can't block my grandma (and can't catch either).

One point. Campbell has played behind some of the crappiest oline players (with the Skins) and so our oline woes won't be anything new to him.

I think part of the explanation can be found in the way the players themselves describe the differences between them.

Cutler seems to wait for a player to break open and then delivers the ball. That may be one reason we see him holding onto the ball as long as he does. But with his arm he can still make those throws and get completions because the ball gets to the receiver as quickly as it does. He throws what guys would call a "heavy ball".

Campbell is a "timing" kind of guy who wants to throw on or just before the receiver breaks. I think that takes a little more time to work out between him and his receivers. Guys will turn and the ball will be there or well on the way and the have to adjust to it quickly. Campbell has a good arm but not the kind of gun Cutler has and he throws a "softer" ball.

All in all it will take a little adjustment on the part of the receivers and on Campbells part just getting comfortable with one another. I think this would be a game where it would be smart to activate Sanz since he and Campbell have been working more together and may have their timing down better than he will with others.

This of course just makes good sense which is probably why they won't do it.