Brock gets 72 mil for 4 years

[Chitownhustla]

With 7 career starts......... Proven zero in the NFL. Does that make everyone rethink the hated Cutler contract?

 

It just shows you how hard it is to find a QB and how much you have to pay to get one.

['TD']

With 7 career starts......... Proven zero in the NFL. Does that make everyone rethink the hated Cutler contract?

 

It just shows you how hard it is to find a QB and how much you have to pay to get one.

Not at all, it was a horrible contract that bound the organization to a bad QB and kept the Bears from moving on or finding trade partners. The money was continually not only guaranteed for that year, but for the following year once a certain date was reached. It was a bad contract period.

 

The Bears knew what they were getting with Cutler, and at least Brock as some potential to become better than mediocre. I'm not saying that I like Brock's contract, or that I would want him to QB a team I like. I'm just saying that Houston making a ridiculous contract doesn't make Emery's mistakes look better years down the road. Cutler should have been franchised, period.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Bears' salary cap was over 25 million than Houston's is now now. There is a team with a 50% higher salary cap now(Jacksonville $190 million) than the Bears had in 2014($133 million). That has inflated all the prices being paid this year .

 

The Bears just paid what have been huge money a couple years ago for a tackling LB(that was maybe the 5th or 6th best player on his D). I'm fine with that signing, because prices are much higher this year and it improves the team.

[Chitownhustla]

Not at all, it was a horrible contract that bound the organization to a bad QB and kept the Bears from moving on or finding trade partners. The money was continually not only guaranteed for that year, but for the following year once a certain date was reached. It was a bad contract period.

 

The Bears knew what they were getting with Cutler, and at least Brock as some potential to become better than mediocre. I'm not saying that I like Brock's contract, or that I would want him to QB a team I like. I'm just saying that Houston making a ridiculous contract doesn't make Emery's mistakes look better years down the road. Cutler should have been franchised, period.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Bears' salary cap was over 25 million than Houston's is now now. There is a team with a 50% higher salary cap now(Jacksonville $190 million) than the Bears had in 2014($133 million). That has inflated all the prices being paid this year .

 

The Bears just paid what have been huge money a couple years ago for a tackling LB(that was maybe the 5th or 6th best player on his D). I'm fine with that signing, because prices are much higher this year and it improves the team.

 

 

Cutler at 16 mil this year isnt looking to bad. If you cant admit that you are just being stubborn. Emery screwed up, 1 by hiring the wrong coach and two by the guaranteed money. He was smart by front loading the contract. The salary cap has gone up and now Cutlers contract is very Bear friendly, you dont think Cliff Stein forecast-ed the cap later on down the road?

 

 

 

As far as the Franchise Tag, I agree with you there. It would have been the smart choice. Either way Emery locked him up, because that is what you do in the NFL when you have a good QB.

['TD']

Cutler at 16 mil this year isnt looking to bad. If you cant admit that you are just being stubborn. Emery screwed up, 1 by hiring the wrong coach and two by the guaranteed money. He was smart by front loading the contract. The salary cap has gone up and now Cutlers contract is very Bear friendly, you dont think Cliff Stein forecast-ed the cap later on down the road?

 

 

 

As far as the Franchise Tag, I agree with you there. It would have been the smart choice. Either way Emery locked him up, because that is what you do in the NFL when you have a good QB.

It's a very friendly contract now, given the market and the ability to trade this year or cut/trade in the future. However, it was a very bad deal when it signed, and my opinion of that isn't changed by the current market.

 

Below subpar TE's and RB's are making 6 million a year or so, but doesn't make me feel better about Brandon Manumaleuna and Chester Taylor's contracts in the past.

[killakrzydav]

Cutlers deal is a steal. Anyone who can't see that is blind as funk.

[dawhizz]

Looks like the Broncos could be in desperate need of a QB in the draft. So, would you consider a trade down if you got a big offer? They have picks at the end of the 1st (#31), 2nd (#63), and two at the end of the 3rd (#94 and #98). Just thinking out loud, but what if you could get all four of those picks, plus Bradley Roby (3rd year CB out of Ohio State who has been their nickel behind two pro bowlers) and another promising young player or future high pick?

[adam]

This is all setting up for Peyton to come out of retirement.

[jason]

Looks like the Broncos could be in desperate need of a QB in the draft. So, would you consider a trade down if you got a big offer? They have picks at the end of the 1st (#31), 2nd (#63), and two at the end of the 3rd (#94 and #98). Just thinking out loud, but what if you could get all four of those picks, plus Bradley Roby (3rd year CB out of Ohio State who has been their nickel behind two pro bowlers) and another promising young player or future high pick?

 

If you're saying a 1, 2, 3, Roby, and another promising player, then yes. Hell, I think it might be worth it even if you take out the promising young player to be named later. Roby seems like the kind of "good production in limited time"-guy that the current FO seems to like.

[bradjock]

It's a very friendly contract now, given the market and the ability to trade this year or cut/trade in the future. However, it was a very bad deal when it signed, and my opinion of that isn't changed by the current market.

 

Below subpar TE's and RB's are making 6 million a year or so, but doesn't make me feel better about Brandon Manumaleuna and Chester Taylor's contracts in the past.

 

So you are saying it was a bad deal at the time. But now it's a really good deal. So we shouldn't have done it even though it's a really good deal? Because maybe we could have traded him or something?

 

With Manumaleuna, that was a bad deal at the time. Nobody was paying him what we paid him. We got hosed. But Chester Taylor's deal was realistic and seemed good at the time.

 

Don't forget we also signed Orlando Pace which also proved to be awful.

 

Getting back to Cutler, who do you think we could have had if we hadn't extended him? How would NOT extending him make this team better?

[Chitownhustla]

It's a very friendly contract now, given the market and the ability to trade this year or cut/trade in the future. However, it was a very bad deal when it signed, and my opinion of that isn't changed by the current market.

 

Below subpar TE's and RB's are making 6 million a year or so, but doesn't make me feel better about Brandon Manumaleuna and Chester Taylor's contracts in the past.

 

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The whole reason to sign a guy to a long term deal is to lock him in at todays rate for multiple years, knowing that QB prices will continue to go up. Benefit for the player, big guaranteed money.

 

Compare his deal to others and its never really been a bad deal in terms of money. Yeah he was a high cap hit the first year but the Bears could afford it and Cutlers deal never hindered them for going after other guys. If year two of the Trestman shit show Cutlers deal would never have even ever looked bad.

['TD']

So you are saying it was a bad deal at the time. But now it's a really good deal. So we shouldn't have done it even though it's a really good deal? Because maybe we could have traded him or something?

 

With Manumaleuna, that was a bad deal at the time. Nobody was paying him what we paid him. We got hosed. But Chester Taylor's deal was realistic and seemed good at the time.

 

Don't forget we also signed Orlando Pace which also proved to be awful.

 

Getting back to Cutler, who do you think we could have had if we hadn't extended him? How would NOT extending him make this team better?

 

No I am not and yes I am. Who we should have grabbed or shouldn't isn't really important because it was speculation. Personally, I would have took advantage of the second highest scoring offense in the league the year it was made and franchised him. Tried to find a deal and start finding the Bears future QB, the Bears had an adequate stop gap while the Bears went to find a QB. Inevitably, the Bears would have been in a rebuilding situation like they are now due to past missmanagment of the roster.

 

I'm also saying it isn't a a good deal not. I just wasn't going to argue the pay vs. production and talent because above average QB's gets paid today. That is only because an argument over talent could distract the conversation from my point. The argument of how good of a QB Cutler is goes from top 5 to bottom 5, depending on who you talk to and that has nothing to do with the contract.

 

He's finally entered a situation where we are not guaranteeing money 2 years ahead of time, and he can be cut. Pay, I would argue that that over 18 million that is left on his contract average is bad given his age and past. The reason I say it is reasonable is because he can moved on from with little penalty now from my memory of his contract.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The whole reason to sign a guy to a long term deal is to lock him in at todays rate for multiple years, knowing that QB prices will continue to go up. Benefit for the player, big guaranteed money.

 

Compare his deal to others and its never really been a bad deal in terms of money. Yeah he was a high cap hit the first year but the Bears could afford it and Cutlers deal never hindered them for going after other guys. If year two of the Trestman shit show Cutlers deal would never have even ever looked bad.

1.) He had no reason to be locked up long term to start out with, which adds to the bad contract. He was coming off a career part of a year that he didn't finish and was out produced by a journeyman QB. The Bears gave a large contract based on half a seasons performance and inspite of a past history. A Franchise tag, and possible trade or letting him earn a contract would have been the appropriate move. This isn't revisionist theory on my part, it was my opinion of the deal at the time.

 

2.) Since he had the contract, he had the most turn overs in the league one year and lead a team to 6 wins the next year. What was that 13 wins all together for the 48 million he has collected so far. That's a bad deal.

 

 

The only reason I say it is reasonable now is because he could be traded this year. He could be cut next year. He is still getting paid at an above average pay, and the first part of the contract have gave the Bears nothing, while keeping them locked into him as QB for multiple years due to bad terms of the agreement. I guarantee that last year, Fox and Pace would have cut him if they could.

 

They made it obvious they wanted to move him and his production(having the most turnovers in the league) and contract prevented them from moving him last year.

 

Now 2 years later, when the Cap has raised double than his salary, he is still in the middle of the pact in pay. The bears are not getting dividends from signing him early based on where he lies in that pack. His pay starts to ascend back up, but least he can be cut. That is the onlything good about his contract, we can get rid of him.

[scs787]

I hate this discussion and was gonna avoid but.....Cutler can be cut THIS year and the Bears save 4M. So, if you guarantee they would have cut him last year if they could, why haven't they cut him this year when they can? Does the guarantee still stand? Tomorrow is actually when the whole contract becomes guaranteed.

['TD']

I hate this discussion and was gonna avoid but.....Cutler can be cut THIS year and the Bears save 4M. So, if you guarantee they would have cut him last year if they could, why haven't they cut him this year when they can? Does the guarantee still stand?

There is 13 million dead cap if he is cut now. I don't see him cut in any situation right now, but maybe next year but still likely traded for a late pick if he is here then.

 

If he is traded, there is only 3 million in dead cap. The team that trades for him assumes the 10 million guaranteed for this year. The 3 million is a roll over from where emery converted his money into a signing bonus over 5 years.

 

Edit: From my understanding, after this year the guaranteed money is done. I know for a fact, the 10 million for this year was guaranteed last year once like the 10th or 13th hit or something of march.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

A couple years ago shortly after Fox and Pace took over (John Fox: "I look forward to working with Jake.") there was much discussion of a trade to Tenessee in hope of maybe getting a deal for their 1st or something comparable. It didn't work for whatever reason. We know there was a shopping of Cutler if not overtly. I suspect the Titans realized that Cutlers contract was above and beyond what they wanted or could afford. Secondly and as TD has said, Cutler really hadn't proven himself to have earned the much, let alone the title "Franchise QB". Osweiller is sorta similar in that so far he's played 7 games and had one where he threw for more that 300 yds. The Texans are banking on that seven game performance to translate to long term Franchise QB. Many teams have made similarly poor choices in QBs after seeing them do a 'one hit wonder'. Matt Flynn and the Seahawks, Derek Anderson and the Browns, Matt Cassell and the Chiefs and our very own Bears with their putrid deal for Rick Mirer (or was it the Flutie deal that stunk more?).

 

The very fact that Cutlers deal was so expensive for at least the first two years was a large, if not only, reason they weren't able to unload him. There is confidence (I suspect not as much as they're letting on) in Cutler at least playing the game manager role like he started to last year. And in essence be a placeholder until a legitimate QB comes along. Will we see who that is this year? Maybe.

[50england50]

The contract for QB was reasonable at the time and Cliff Stein would have looked at the salary cap going forward and made a decision either to front or back load it. By paying the guaranteed money early means we have a starting QB at a low price.

Whether you feel the contract is bad or good will always come down to your view of Cutler.

The contract that I was more concerned about that shackled the team was Julius Peppers where we had a player that clearly was putting in the effort and was just as overpaid.

Although Cutler salary is high no one can ever say he has put everything he has in playing for the Bears. I won't argue is decision making as been bad at times but you can't question is work ethic.

The biggest positive I can see at the Bears at the moment is we are doing things that successful teams are doing i.e. Moving players on before they decline such as Forte. If we would have done this from 2010 onwards we wouldn't have developed an old roster.

['TD']

The contract for QB was reasonable at the time and Cliff Stein would have looked at the salary cap going forward and made a decision either to front or back load it. By paying the guaranteed money early means we have a starting QB at a low price.

Whether you feel the contract is bad or good will always come down to your view of Cutler.

The contract that I was more concerned about that shackled the team was Julius Peppers where we had a player that clearly was putting in the effort and was just as overpaid.

Although Cutler salary is high no one can ever say he has put everything he has in playing for the Bears. I won't argue is decision making as been bad at times but you can't question is work ethic.

The biggest positive I can see at the Bears at the moment is we are doing things that successful teams are doing i.e. Moving players on before they decline such as Forte. If we would have done this from 2010 onwards we wouldn't have developed an old roster.

I disagree on a couple things. I will start with last first, I don't think moving on is what made the roster old. It was just flat out bad drafting for a very long amount of time. The team had no one to move on too. The only way they could have moved on was through free agency, and while younger it is usually average talent at best.

 

The other thing I disagree on is whether Cutler's contract was good or bad based on your opinion of him. Granted, that may effect our view as fans, but as a contract I think the structure was just bad.

 

You can debate the amount he was paid due to talent, but the structure of it was very prohibitive and locked him in to the team for 3 years without a chance to option out.

 

Structurally, compared to Osweiler's contract, I dont think Brock's contract makes Cutler's look good in comparison which is where the conversation started. The cap has risen a lot. Houston has more freedom to move on quickly, and the pay per year is comparable, with Brock being much younger and his team having the flexibility to move on easier and less guaranteed money.

 

 

 

 

[AZ54]

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The whole reason to sign a guy to a long term deal is to lock him in at todays rate for multiple years, knowing that QB prices will continue to go up. Benefit for the player, big guaranteed money.

 

Compare his deal to others and its never really been a bad deal in terms of money. Yeah he was a high cap hit the first year but the Bears could afford it and Cutlers deal never hindered them for going after other guys. If year two of the Trestman shit show Cutlers deal would never have even ever looked bad.

 

I always felt that, given the heavy guaranteed money, Cutler's deal was $1-2 mil too high. Lower the guaranteed money and it fit better because the club could have had a way out. Emery didn't seem to get that point plus he kept over-selling his QB as a franchise guy when there still remained some questions. There's no reason to negotiate against yourself.