Alaskan Grizzly

Cutler appears to not even be trying anymore. freak HIM! I don't know how anyone here was offering excuses for him like they were. What a piece of shit.

What no more Lance "La Cucaracha" Briggs? (tip of the hat to Adam). Briggs is ROD. Retired On Duty...

This is more along the lines of a leader that we and other players on the team need to see. More Paytonesque where Matt believes actions are louder than words. So true. http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpos...amp;src=desktop

Shocker. Anyone feel like Jay Cutler when Briggs said this will be his last year with Chicago?

I think that's the issue. Cutler is NOT a pocket passer. He doesn't have the vision (or patience) to 'stand tall' in the pocket and go through his progressions. Hasn't been comfortable doing it and after nine years (some of it trying to be a pocket passer) without lasting effectiveness, he needs to try something that might work better. The one year he had as Pro Bowler was with the zone blocking scheme that Shannahan employed in Denver. I'm fairly confident the younger players on the line; Long, Ola and Mills can adapt. Most of these guys have experience at Guard where a lot times you are asked to pull on trap blocks. Zone blocking is a little easier where you're shuffling right or left (with the rest of line) depending on the call. And since the team is essentially using a variant of WCO then it makes sense to try and do this.

Most of what you said has already been discussed, as has the George-Cutler comparison. However, and with what TD pointed out, one win will not settle this for him. I don't think that was exactly your point but to expand upon this. I agree that if he cuts down on the INT's (specifically the dumb ones) AND he's able to consistently play good games and not do this Jekyll and Hyde thing then we're onto something. Maybe this change of his passing out of the pocket will be what helps him. I really do hope.

In response to your comment bolded: "Coulda, shoulda, didn't." But to really look at who did what and partly why this discussion came up. Cutler lost to the Green Bay Packer defense 9 out of 10 times. Rodgers has beat the Chicago Bears defense a majority of those times. (Keeping in mind QB's don't play against each other directly). For most of those wins by Rodgers, the Bears defense was regarded as one of the better units. Until the year McCown won against GB and Wallace played them. Last year was the worst performance by a Chicago Bears defense in team history. Theoretically it shouldn't have mattered who was playing QB since the defense wasn't as able to keep the offense off the field. So using the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" theory, there is very much the possibility that Rodgers would NOT have won that game just as much as he could have. One thing has been proven more than one flash in pan performance (McCown's) is that Cutler has not performed well against the Packers. That is a fact.

And Connor.

So where does one define a "successful" coach? In the 'modern era' of football there have only been 48 Super Bowls of which have been won by 30 coaches. Of course there are oodles of others that haven't even gotten that far. How about those that have been there multiple times only to lose? Marv Levy? He made four consecutive appearances but won none of them. Is that a conviction of his ability as a coach or his players? Or how about Dan Reeves? He made four appearances with two separate teams and lost all four. Or how about Don Shula's 3-2 record in the Super Bowls? Just because coaches like George Seifert and Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl, doesn't mean they were great coaches. They inherited a great team from a previous coach. Ditka was there to build the team to where it ended up. Yes he had a good staff but that goes to his "coaching" ability. What caused he and his team to not win anymore Super Bowls was more his stubbornness than his lack of coaching ability.

Being of a miltary background I prefer the hotheads. Results are more instantaneous. Although I don't necessarily like the 'touchy feely' (or less animated) approach there are those that have succeeded. Landry was one. So too was Dungy and to some extent Belichick. But more firebrands seem to get results: Cowher, Ditka, Coughlin, Jimmy Johnson, Parcells, Peyton, Gruden, and Walsh to name a few.

"Everyone relax K-E-E-P C-A-L-M. Mmkay? "

...unless you're Lucky Luciano. http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...ml#.VFptZNm9LCS

Well if Cutler were to actually throw against coverage by Rodgers I might be more impressed. But since he (Rodgers) doesn't play defense then your "fact" is sorta moot. The fact that Cutler's had ten opportunities to play against GB and only one once says more.

This was commented on earlier during another thread. The thought of Cutler moving out of the pocket might actually make better sense. He seemed to do better while in Denver doing this. I don't think Cutler is made to be a pocket passer. Although Jason always thought Cutler HAD to run I always was of the opinion he chose to be more mobile. With Trestman it really isn't all that much a stretch since Steve Young, who was coached by Trestman, was pretty successful as a mobile QB. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...1104-story.html

Just a reality recap on that game, Josh McCown was the QB during that win. Just sayin... But my positive side looks at things like overall stats etc and the Bears currently lead the overall wins between the two with 93 to GB's 90. And the largest win margin (61-7 in 1980 - *source Wikipedia). And lead in Divisional titles (18-15*). And hold the larger all-time record (739-542 to GB's 708-542 *). So on 'Any Given Sunday' great things can happen and I feel like we're due.

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason...rity-is-tenuous Leaders on the team need to lead. Not bitch. Emery has put Trestman in a predicament in a few instances IMO.

What's funny is many said if the D could improve and Cutler played well (to include the offense overall) then the team would have a chance. At this point the D has improved (since last year) with an overall ranking at 19th (although that's slid from 14th a few weeks back). So where is the overall disconnect? Is it really the ST first and foremost then the D or?? Another thing I think crazy is the Bears are halfway done with the season and have only played one game in the division. Maybe if they pull it together things could look up a bit?

I think the key to 2014 season Act II will be how the team comes out for the next game against GB. If they look prepared and either win or play a close game then things could look up for the remainder of the season. Sometimes a break can do wonders. Other times it can prolong the inevitable. I'm a believer in 'anything can happen'. I would be immensely proud if they were to come out and play a fantastic game at Lambeau then continue on with a winning season before the curtain call.

We must soldier on. Cheers.

This too shall pass. Cheerio mate.

Well played sir. As I sit here in the setting sun of Florida I raise my glass to you. Heading on my way to Chicago tomorrow to visit some family and buy some Bears gear...hopefully at a reduced rate.

Since your opinion is shite I'd say you're wrong. Although I agree in not getting rid of Trestman just yet. He's not the one screwing up on O it's Cutler. But I suspect his days will be numbered should this losing streak continue. Wade Phillips should never be considered for any conversation as a HC...anywhere. The reason you probably don't like JH is because he's a hard ass. I sense you are of the sensitive nature so no wonder you don't like him. Especially since you think he's too much like Ditka; which in that context means you don't like strict discipline coaches. But how do you explain the winning records in both instances (minus Ditkas tenure in NO)? Harbaugh would be just about perfect for Chicago. Strict, winning record (Stanford and SF) and is familiar with Chicago since he's played there before. Seems almost too perfect . And with him they should either keep Herring as DC or Bryan Cox for Atlanta. Another hard line coach.

Amen!!

Yep

Or not...