Thread: Should Emery extend Cutler's contract this year?

Cutler will be very expensive next year..

I say yes, but you never know with Emery. I start to think that Cutler is not a fit for the scheme Trestman wants to play. I wouldn't be surprised to see us taking QB Nassib later in the draft if available and have that type of QB Trestman may prefer.

We will not extend him during the summer, that's for sure. It would have happened already. Looks like the NFC is between the 9ers, Seahawks and Falcons this coming season. We won't win the SB for that matter. Could get Culter with a good Cap Hit for 2014/15 and go all in

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, we should extend both Cutler and Marshall THIS year and try to gain some cap relief THIS year to give us more room to give Jay better protection RIGHT AWAY. I know there are many Cutler doubters, but when you watch him play, the guy is gifted. Yea, the guy makes poor decisions occasionally, but so have MANY of the greatest QB's in history, not the least of which was Brett Favre. The difference is, most of those great QB's had at least "good" protection, and a good to great receiving corp. Give Cutler a competent OC (which we all hope he now has, first time since he's been here), adequate protection and now, even better weapons, and it all adds up to a pretty good year for him this year, even WITH learning yet another new offense. Sign him now, because he will only be more expensive after a good year. Besides, if he fails and we have to search for yet another young QB, we stand an even bigger risk of failing than if we keep Jay and he's not ALL THAT. Even with his warts that we know about, he's still better than most QB's we could bring in through the draft (unknown quantities).

DO IT NOW PHIL!!!

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

Cutler will be very expensive next year..

I agree...as will Marshall (a year later). Both could be extended as a "package deal" (which is what they want anyway) this offseason for far cheaper than will likely be possible next year, freeing up some hefty cap space in the process. The question really is:

What's the greater risk...being Flacco'd or being Kolb'd???

Is JC's heir apparent on the roster? NO, And it won't be next year either unless we go 3-13 this season. Does anybody here really truly think that Cutler won't be the Bears' best option at starting QB for 2014? Even if Jeffery comes on nicely, does anyone here really truly think that BMarsh won't be the Bears' best option for #1 WR in 2014? The same argument can be made for Peanut even though he's a few older than those 2.

Extend them both now with some healthy incentives built in as a substitute for "making him/them play for a contract". That's much smarter but I doubt it will happen with a new coaching regime just starting.

Originally Posted by MPBears68

I agree...as will Marshall (a year later). Both could be extended as a "package deal" (which is what they want anyway) this offseason for far cheaper than will likely be possible next year, freeing up some hefty cap space in the process. The question really is:

What's the greater risk...being Flacco'd or being Kolb'd???

Is JC's heir apparent on the roster? NO, And it won't be next year either unless we go 3-13 this season. Does anybody here really truly think that Cutler won't be the Bears' best option at starting QB for 2014? Even if Jeffery comes on nicely, does anyone here really truly think that BMarsh won't be the Bears' best option for #1 WR in 2014? The same argument can be made for Peanut even though he's a few older than those 2.

Extend them both now with some healthy incentives built in as a substitute for "making him/them play for a contract". That's much smarter but I doubt it will happen with a new coaching regime just starting.

I agree with this thinking. I'm beginning to realize how important it is to think multi-year in managing the cap. You make excellent points that Marshall and Cutler are going to be re-signed anyway. Why not save some very precious cap space for future years by signing them now - and save a boatload of money for keeping the team talent high in future years.

If not, then we will pay through the nose and fail to have as much money for OTHER player signings (and retaining OTHER players we already have).

If we snooze we lose.

I posted my opinion some time back....

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.

...and my opinion has still not changed. This is the second or third time that I have quoted myself.... Makes me question my sanity....

That being said, I suspect that Halas Hall (HH) is of a different opinion.

Do we have any room in the cap?

edit: As of this morning, Bears have $5.45 million in salary cap space, according to a league source. Per Shawn Jensen.