Thread: Bear down: Jay Cutler faces a do-or-bye season in Chicago

Originally Posted by Rogelio

The biggest offense I took with the article was Miller claiming Cutler was injury prone. No, he had a few injuries. I'm sure Miller would include it in his argument, but set aside the two games in three years he missed due to concussions. One game had the Giants rushing past the line without even being touched (7 sacks in a half), and the other concussion was due to a cheap shot. And only two of the seemingly 1000+ hits he has taken with the Bears have lead to concussions.

Other than that, he strained a ligament in his knee (and he very likely would have been ready for the Super Bowl had they made it) and broke his thumb trying to tackle a defender. Sorry, two random, unrelated injuries doesn't make one injury prone. There are many legitimate things to criticize Cutler for, and even more illegitimate ones. Being injury prone falls in the latter.

Exactly. The writer is an idiot.

Personally, I think (dangerous thing around here) that Cutler is going to be the bears quarterback in both the short and mid term. Why?

Well, in the last 4 years the Bears have played 5 QBs, Collins (oof!), Haine, McCown, Campbell, and the starter Cutler. Whenever someone other than Cutler has been at QB the Bears have played worse than with him. While this can be dismissed as "those guys are all back-ups" it should also be considered that the Bears traded away Orton, who was having a problem with not being able to go through his reads, find the open man, and throw it before the defensive rush got to him. This was because Orton needed at least 2.5 seconds to do these things, and most pass rushes were getting to him in 2.0 to 2.2 seconds (in one case a team was able to get to Orton in 1.8 seconds). (NOTE: only Ortons' last season is valid for comparison due to different players during Ortons' earlier seasons versus Cutlers' first season.) The fact is Cutler has been able to win, where other QBs have lost. This is with the same OL, and the same WRs, and the same RB. Who was it that said that "Great players elevate the (game)play of the players around them"?

Next, there is the OL itself. As poorly ranked as this O-Line has been, how likely is any other QB going to do well? Yes, there are QBs coming out of college who are able to transform a team, however, it stands to reason that there are more of them that can do it from behind an O-Line that can protect well. Not improving the O-Line means that bad QB play must be solely on the QB, therefore, if the QB is unable to perform, an new QB is needed. This forces the team to find a great, mobile and/or hard to tackle QB, instead of only having to find a great QB. This reduces a teams chances of finding a great QB for this team considerably. I would think the reduction would be between 50 and 90% While the percentages are my opinion, the basic logic is difficult to dispute.
Now it is possible that the O-line will be dramatically improved by new coaching, scheme, the addition of new talent, and the physical recovery of some players, but I've heard that before. The reality is that a improved O-line is not guaranteed. Further, Emery/Trestman have to plan not just for next season, but seasons beyond as well. I will not assume that all of the problems on the O-Line will be "fixed" in a single off season. It is more likely that it will take AT LEAST 2 seasons, more if things go poorly. The Bears know that the team can be successful with Cutler behind a bad O-Line. The alternative is for the Bears roll the dice on a "new" QB while building the O-Line, and this just leads us back to where we are. Is it the QB? The O-Line? Both? Who knows? And the circle of blame and the lack of accountability continue... Nope, not where I want to be if I'm a team, coach, or GM. Bottom line here is that Cutler is (at a bare minimum) a known quantity, and it will be easier to gauge the O-Lines progress with the same QB.

Further, keeping Cutler establishes a bar for his replacement. If a player wants to be the starting QB, he has to be better than Cutler. The beautiful thing about this idea is that if you are a member of the "Jay Cutler Sucks!" crowd, then this would mean that the bar is set rather low, and soon, some UDFA, or, some late round draft pick that was cut by another team that the Bears signed, will be taking over the starting QB spot in just a year or two, and Jay will be Cut (ba-doom-tish) from the team. If you are in the "Jay is a Great QB!" crowd then Jay will be here for some time to come. This is a competitive concept, may the best man win.

As an added benefit, Cutler will have been signed when his value is low, rather than paying for his peak performance with the expectation that said peak performance will be maintained.

Personally, I've been chewing on this for some time. I would have to strongly consider signing Jay to a 3 or 4 year extension. I guess I'm willing to take the risk that Jay will improve as the team does. If he does not, then I'm perfectly willing to cut him, but only after I find someone better.

Originally Posted by XaosGorilla

Personally, I think (dangerous thing around here) that Cutler is going to be the bears quarterback in both the short and mid term. Why?

Well, in the last 4 years the Bears have played 5 QBs, Collins (oof!), Haine, McCown, Campbell, and the starter Cutler. Whenever someone other than Cutler has been at QB the Bears have played worse than with him. While this can be dismissed as "those guys are all back-ups" it should also be considered that the Bears traded away Orton, who was having a problem with not being able to go through his reads, find the open man, and throw it before the defensive rush got to him. This was because Orton needed at least 2.5 seconds to do these things, and most pass rushes were getting to him in 2.0 to 2.2 seconds (in one case a team was able to get to Orton in 1.8 seconds). (NOTE: only Ortons' last season is valid for comparison due to different players during Ortons' earlier seasons versus Cutlers' first season.) The fact is Cutler has been able to win, where other QBs have lost. This is with the same OL, and the same WRs, and the same RB. Who was it that said that "Great players elevate the (game)play of the players around them"?

Next, there is the OL itself. As poorly ranked as this O-Line has been, how likely is any other QB going to do well? Yes, there are QBs coming out of college who are able to transform a team, however, it stands to reason that there are more of them that can do it from behind an O-Line that can protect well. Not improving the O-Line means that bad QB play must be solely on the QB, therefore, if the QB is unable to perform, an new QB is needed. This forces the team to find a great, mobile and/or hard to tackle QB, instead of only having to find a great QB. This reduces a teams chances of finding a great QB for this team considerably. I would think the reduction would be between 50 and 90% While the percentages are my opinion, the basic logic is difficult to dispute.
Now it is possible that the O-line will be dramatically improved by new coaching, scheme, the addition of new talent, and the physical recovery of some players, but I've heard that before. The reality is that a improved O-line is not guaranteed. Further, Emery/Trestman have to plan not just for next season, but seasons beyond as well. I will not assume that all of the problems on the O-Line will be "fixed" in a single off season. It is more likely that it will take AT LEAST 2 seasons, more if things go poorly. The Bears know that the team can be successful with Cutler behind a bad O-Line. The alternative is for the Bears roll the dice on a "new" QB while building the O-Line, and this just leads us back to where we are. Is it the QB? The O-Line? Both? Who knows? And the circle of blame and the lack of accountability continue... Nope, not where I want to be if I'm a team, coach, or GM. Bottom line here is that Cutler is (at a bare minimum) a known quantity, and it will be easier to gauge the O-Lines progress with the same QB.

Further, keeping Cutler establishes a bar for his replacement. If a player wants to be the starting QB, he has to be better than Cutler. The beautiful thing about this idea is that if you are a member of the "Jay Cutler Sucks!" crowd, then this would mean that the bar is set rather low, and soon, some UDFA, or, some late round draft pick that was cut by another team that the Bears signed, will be taking over the starting QB spot in just a year or two, and Jay will be Cut (ba-doom-tish) from the team. If you are in the "Jay is a Great QB!" crowd then Jay will be here for some time to come. This is a competitive concept, may the best man win.

As an added benefit, Cutler will have been signed when his value is low, rather than paying for his peak performance with the expectation that said peak performance will be maintained.

Personally, I've been chewing on this for some time. I would have to strongly consider signing Jay to a 3 or 4 year extension. I guess I'm willing to take the risk that Jay will improve as the team does. If he does not, then I'm perfectly willing to cut him, but only after I find someone better.

Those are great points. I'm thinking the same things. Only time will tell, but I'm pretty optimistic about the QB going into the new era with Emery/Trestman. I'm thinking that the QB position is the least of our worries. We have REAL issues that ARE serious. QB is not one of them IMHO.

Originally Posted by JJ-30

I also agree a GM doesn't build an Offense around his QB just to let him walk a year later. Cutler is here and he is going to stay here. It took Lovie and JA years to make the Offense as bad as it is it just might take another year to right most of a the wrong that have been done.

Case in point do we go after tackles in FA and the Draft and hope the center on the line works out or do we rebuild the center of the line and hope the tackles work out. Maybe the fixes we put in place this year will make Cutler a Pro Bowl QB again or the fixes don't work and we see cutler running for his life, no one knows. Even if we end up getting the Offense running right and Cutler still has a bad year I don't see him going anywhere, we might start looking for his replacement but he will still be a Bear in 2014.

Something I find interesting is people give Forte a pass of this year because poor play calling, bad O line. But at the sametime their not willing to give Cutler break. Cutler is a QB not a miracle he can't make Hester and Davis catch the ball or run the right routes, he can't walk up to Bennett or AJ and make there injuries all better, just like he can't make the O line protest better or even open holes for the running game.

Is it too much to ask that Cutler be able to stand in the pocket and wait for his WRs, TEs or RBs to run their routes so he can get the ball to them or that the O line open up the holes needed for Forte and Bush to run through.

Good point JJ. It seems to me that there is an entire legion of Bears fans out there, and some around here as well, who will use any excuse they can to find fault with Cutler. It's a personality issue they have with him and not his play. He doesn't behave like they think he should behave so that colors their entire opinion of him. That's an idiotic way to evaluate him but if they're gonna insist on being idiots well then let them be idiots. They'll all jump back on his bandwagon if he takes the team to a SB.

Another good point is that Emery didn't bring Trestman in help Jay run the offense they're going to build around him just to replace him a year from now. Until Jay starts winning big games I expect to keep hearing from all of these writers and posters who must have an overabundance of estrogen in their systems since they think it's as easy to change QBs as it is to change their clothes. They need to stop posting on the internet and go out and buy a new handbag and shoes to match so they'll feel better about themselves and not worry about Jay Cutler and how he proposes to his fiancee. I'll bet those girls are all up in arms over that. The cad!

Originally Posted by soulman

Good point JJ. It seems to me that there is an entire legion of Bears fans out there, and some around here as well, who will use any excuse they can to find fault with Cutler. It's a personality issue they have with him and not his play. He doesn't behave like they think he should behave so that colors their entire opinion of him. That's an idiotic way to evaluate him but if they're gonna insist on being idiots well then let them be idiots. They'll all jump back on his bandwagon if he takes the team to a SB.

Another good point is that Emery didn't bring Trestman in help Jay run the offense they're going to build around him just to replace him a year from now. Until Jay starts winning big games I expect to keep hearing from all of these writers and posters who must have an overabundance of estrogen in their systems since they think it's as easy to change QBs as it is to change their clothes. They need to stop posting on the internet and go out and buy a new handbag and shoes to match so they'll feel better about themselves and not worry about Jay Cutler and how he proposes to his fiancee. I'll bet those girls are all up in arms over that. The cad!

Soul, even if we do win Super Bowls with Cutler, that doesn't count for anything. It's his "body language" that makes him a bad QB. The Bears should have noted the body language problem before we acquired him.

And it's a problem that goes back to Jay's high school days at Heritage Hills High School in Indiana. Here he is winning the State Championship game. Clearly he had the body language problem, even back then (you have to look real close to see it in this photo, but it's there).

And if you listen to the first track on the original 1969 Led Zeppelin album (the 3rd track, "You Shook Me"), you can clearly hear Robert Plant's prophecy of a Bears QB from Indiana, who would have poor body language. If you still have a record player, you might want to listen to the track backwards to get the full effect. I'll bet you NOBODY at Halas Hall listened to this track before we traded for Cutler!!! I blame Jerry Angelo.