Duck-Billed Catechist Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Does the deal get the Bears closer to a Superbowl? I think yes--and that's the only criteria that they should be judged on. A franchise QB is extremely difficult to get (especially for the Bears) and Superbowl teams have pro-bowl QBs 80-90% of the time. I guess we'll see. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Does the deal get the Bears closer to a Superbowl? I think yes--and that's the only criteria that they should be judged on. A franchise QB is extremely difficult to get (especially for the Bears) and Superbowl teams have pro-bowl QBs 80-90% of the time. I guess we'll see.I think the Bears are still going to suck, though, because the problems were not addressed. The QB wasn't the issue and still won't be for them struggling. Decent take from a Chicago Tribune reporter I read in the Denver Post today:http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...,6068743.column Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 This was a great deal for both teams. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think the Bears gave up too much. I think most teams would give up 2 mid to late first rounders for a franchise quarterback. Assuming they finish as good or a little better than last year. I think Cutler is worth it, especially considering that most of the Broncos' problems last year involved their horrible defense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think most teams would give up 2 mid to late first rounders for a franchise quarterback. Assuming they finish as good or a little better than last year. I think Cutler is worth it, especially considering that most of the Broncos' problems last year involved their horrible defense.Wait, if we're going by past deals, if Green Bay traded one first-round pick for Favre, that would mean Cutler will have to be more than twice as good as Favre. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think the Bears are still going to suck, though, because the problems were not addressed. The QB wasn't the issue and still won't be for them struggling.The QB was a pretty huge issue. Haven't they had like 23 starters in 15 years or something? That sounds like a problem. Obviously they have other issues, but in my opinion, this can only help them in the long run. Given the mediocre state of the North, I would say it makes them an instant playoff contender. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think most teams would give up 2 mid to late first rounders for a franchise quarterback. Assuming they finish as good or a little better than last year. I think Cutler is worth it, especially considering that most of the Broncos' problems last year involved their horrible defense. Cutler has the potential to be a franchise QB. I don't think he is yet. If he turns out to be one, yes this was a good deal. If not, it wasn't. Since there's a question mark, I think it was too much of a gamble and too much to give up. That leaves aside questions of attitude. It also ignores the fact that Denver was forced to trade him. Wait, if we're going by past deals, if Green Bay traded one first-round pick for Favre, that would mean Cutler will have to be more than twice as good as Favre. GB didnt get a first round pick for Favre. They got a conditional 4th round pick. It would have been a 1st rd pick if the Jets made the super bowl. I am not trying to compare one year of Favre to (potentially) ten years of Cutler in Chicago. Just trying to set the record straight on prior deals. Which is to say that you can get a washed up HOFer for a 4th rd pick. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think the Bears are still going to suck, though, because the problems were not addressed. The QB wasn't the issue and still won't be for them struggling. Decent take from a Chicago Tribune reporter I read in the Denver Post today:http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...,6068743.columnQB was the main issue, and has been for decades. You are correct, however, in the sense that the Bears have lots of other holes, starting with the receivers, and also in the offensive line (which looks reasonably solid but is thin in terms of depth) and their much-vaunted defense (which is great at linebacker but weak elsewhere). As for the Tribune columnist, he's confusing being an immature asshole with being a poor quarterback. One does not necessarily equal the other. In fact, I'd say that a whole lot of great quarterbacks have been immature assholes. Doesn't anyone remember Brett Favre's "maybe I'll retire, maybe I won't, I won't tell you for months" routine, which carried on over at least two seasons? In the annals of NFL quarterback douchebag moves, Cutler's doesn't seem any more egregious to me than Favre's. Cutler grew up as a Bears fan. I think he'll be excited to be a Bear and he'll fully commit to his new team. Now if they can keep him from ending up on his ass after every play, maybe, just maybe, he'll lead an offensive resurgence on the lakefront. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I think the Bears are still going to suck, though, because the problems were not addressed. The QB wasn't the issue and still won't be for them struggling. Decent take from a Chicago Tribune reporter I read in the Denver Post today:http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-0...,6068743.columnThey didn't suck before. Why would they suck now? They were a mediocre team--7-9 one year and 9-7 the next. The definition of mediocrity. Their problems were at O-Line, D-line, QB, and receiver. They've added depth at O-Line through free agent signings and their number one draft pick from last year should be healthy (he was out all of 2008 with back surgery). They have filled 2 of 4 major needs and haven't drafted yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Doesn't anyone remember Brett Favre's "maybe I'll retire, maybe I won't, I won't tell you for months" routine, which carried on over at least two seasons? In the annals of NFL quarterback douchebag moves, Cutler's doesn't seem any more egregious to me than Favre's.I would say that Cutler's moves are a bit more egregious than Favre's. Less annoying, sure, but Favre never refused to play. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I would say that Cutler's moves are a bit more egregious than Favre's. Less annoying, sure, but Favre never refused to play.Depends on how you look at it, I guess. Favre basically held his team hostage and made it impossible for them to plan for the coming year in terms of personnel. And he did it more than once. I laughed my ass off when the Packers cut him loose, because they finally got so tired of his bullshit that they parted ways with the face of their franchise. Not to diminish Cutler's douchebaggery in any way. Clearly a dick move, and if I were a Broncos fan I'd be making plans to throw shit at him the next time he's in town. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Cutler has the potential to be a franchise QB. I don't think he is yet. If he turns out to be one, yes this was a good deal. If not, it wasn't. Since there's a question mark, I think it was too much of a gamble and too much to give up. That leaves aside questions of attitude. It also ignores the fact that Denver was forced to trade him. You're really going out on a limb there with that one. 25-year-old quarterback who threw for 4500 yards and 25 touchdowns is a pretty solid year. Cut down on interceptions and get another receiving weapon and I think the Bears have something akin to a franchise quarterback. As far as his attitude goes, it's hard to blame him for not wanting to play in that kind of situation. Once the damage was done by McDaniels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 It never ceases to amaze me how quickly fans can rationalize or ignore problems from a new player. Bears fans are locked and loaded with their new franchise qb and ready for the Super Bowl? And yet, the Bears just got a QB who has handled the last 2 mos like a petulent child, who has more trash talking citations than TDs, and has never led the Broncos to anything of significance. The guy's got talent. It's clear. He could be an absolute star. But let's not be handing out the Vince Lombardi trophy yet. Not to compare Cutler to T.O., but Cowboys fans were doing backflips when they got him too. And I'm with explodo. Cutler's move is akin to Eli Manning's refusal to play for the Chargers. Favre's flipflopping was annoying and arguably detrimental to his team. He never refused to play. If anything, he wanted to play too badly. Give me that guy any day. 25-year-old quarterback who threw for 4500 yards and 25 touchdowns is a pretty solid year. Cut down on interceptions and get another receiving weapon and I think the Bears have something akin to a franchise quarterback. You seem to be making the same point as me. He's got work to do. eg, cut down in INTs. Ergo, he's not an elite QB. Yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Depends on how you look at it, I guess. Favre basically held his team hostage and made it impossible for them to plan for the coming year in terms of personnel. And he did it more than once. I laughed my ass off when the Packers cut him loose, because they finally got so tired of his bullshit that they parted ways with the face of their franchise. That's a bit exaggerated. There's some truth to it, sure. But GB also had Rodgers. It's not like they couldn't plan for the coming year in terms of personnel. Of course they could. Not to diminish Cutler's douchebaggery in any way. Clearly a dick move, and if I were a Broncos fan I'd be making plans to throw shit at him the next time he's in town. What are the odds that you will be doing that as a Bears fan at some point? It's a bad precedent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 It never ceases to amaze me how quickly fans can rationalize or ignore problems from a new player. Bears fans are locked and loaded with their new franchise qb and ready for the Super Bowl? And yet, the Bears just got a QB who has handled the last 2 mos like a petulent child, who has more trash talking citations than TDs, and has never led the Broncos to anything of significance. The guy's got talent. It's clear. He could be an absolute star. But let's not be handing out the Vince Lombardi trophy yet. Not to compare Cutler to T.O., but Cowboys fans were doing backflips when they got him too. And I'm with explodo. Cutler's move is akin to Eli Manning's refusal to play for the Chargers. Favre's flipflopping was annoying and arguably detrimental to his team. He never refused to play. If anything, he wanted to play too badly. Give me that guy any day. You seem to be making the same point as me. He's got work to do. eg, cut down in INTs. Ergo, he's not an elite QB. Yet. He's closer than anything they had or anything they might have been able to get. Certainly worth 2 low first rounders. As a Cowboys fan, I was not doing backflips with the T.O. signing, but I think this situation is different. I agree Cutler could have handled everything better, but why does Josh McDaniels skate by without any blame on this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PigSooie Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I read this somewhere: jay cutler had 8 300+ yd games last year twice the bears all time season record Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I don't think they'll be in the Superbowl this year, but I would be surprised if they weren't in the playoffs. I generally think off the field stuff is overrated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 He's closer than anything they had or anything they might have been able to get. Certainly worth 2 low first rounders. As a Cowboys fan, I was not doing backflips with the T.O. signing, but I think this situation is different. I agree Cutler could have handled everything better, but why does Josh McDaniels skate by without any blame on this? He's definitely an upgrade. I just think it was too much. And if he turns out to be great, I will be wrong. It's a lot to give up for a bit of a question mark, was really my point. As for McDaniels, ehhh. When players renegotiate existing contracts and/or don't report to camp, they say it's just business. Or it's about respect. Double standard? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 GB didnt get a first round pick for Favre. They got a conditional 4th round pick. It would have been a 1st rd pick if the Jets made the super bowl. I am not trying to compare one year of Favre to (potentially) ten years of Cutler in Chicago. Just trying to set the record straight on prior deals. Which is to say that you can get a washed up HOFer for a 4th rd pick. He wasn't a washed up HOFer when GB traded a 1st round pick in 1992 to Atlanta acquire Favre. Comparing like for like, a 2nd-year QB (w/no playing experience) vs. a 3rd-year QB for 2 1st round picks and add'l pick and QB. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 He's definitely an upgrade. I just think it was too much. And if he turns out to be great, I will be wrong. It's a lot to give up for a bit of a question mark, was really my point. As for McDaniels, ehhh. When players renegotiate existing contracts and/or don't report to camp, they say it's just business. Or it's about respect. Double standard? I'm referring more to the way he handled the situation as opposed to what he did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Citing Cutler's numbers in Denver is a little irrelevant, no? He had some pretty good talent running and catching the ball for him. Unless there's comparable talent in CHI will Bears fans expect anything close to those numbers? Yes, he's an up-grade on the field but how does it change the team if everything else remains pretty much the same? Orton wasn't the main problem, was he? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I'm referring more to the way he handled the situation as opposed to what he did. Not sure what you mean then. Seems to me that he handled it like a good head coach. Always looking for ways to improve his team. He tried to meet with Cutler and smooth it over and Cutler refused. No? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 He's definitely an upgrade. I just think it was too much. And if he turns out to be great, I will be wrong. It's a lot to give up for a bit of a question mark, was really my point. As for McDaniels, ehhh. When players renegotiate existing contracts and/or don't report to camp, they say it's just business. Or it's about respect. Double standard?I'm in complete agreement here. The Bears gave up an awful lot and their cupboard is bare (no pun intended) to go after additional talent this year and the next few. Tribune's calling for them to go after Tory Holt now? That seems pretty foolish. Holt did well on turf but he's going to be a void when the winds blow off the lake. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Central Scrutinizer Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I'm referring more to the way he handled the situation as opposed to what he did.It certainly could have been handled better. Whomever the guy is as starting QB coming in, you've got to let the guy know where you stand with him. That said, I've heard so much childish stuff quoted to Cutler, and having experienced Bus Cook in action, who knows what the truth is at this point? McDaniels was in a tough enough position coming in trying to replace Shanahan. Cutler did much more to burn this bridge IMHO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I'm glad the Lions didn't trade the same for Cutler. They have WAY too many needs to address to waste picks on a primadonna. Even though yes, Cutler seemingly would be better than any of the QB draftees. I would be very happy if the Lions did nothing but draft D with their first 5 picks. Win 3-4 games, get QB and O-line next year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.