What's wrong with Jay Cutler

[adam]

Pretty good read.

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/cover-3/2...rong-jay-cutler

 

Cosell believes that Cutler, an idiosyncratic quarterback at best, is falling apart in a system that plays to none of his strengths.

 

I think you’re seeing the cumulative effect of a lot of things. One is an offensive line that is probably the worst in pro football.

 

The more I talked to Greg, the more I believed the Bears would have been better off keeping Kyle Orton and the draft picks. Greg assured me that at his root, Cutler has talent that can't be duplicated. "He is probably the best pure thrower in the National Football League. I'm just talking about throwing a football. Even off-balance, there are throws he makes that are just absolutely remarkable."

 

This was the play that made me decide to write about Cutler this week -- for all the unusual aspects to his throwing motion when he was bringing it in Denver, I have never seen him so indecisive (or, as Greg might say, he's never played so fast). That's the word that comes to mind when I watch Jay Cutler now, and while I have no clue what's going on in his head, the tentative throws I'm seeing indicate a shell-shocked player in a situation that doesn't work for him at all.

[madlithuanian]

Yay coaches!

 

Let's give them another year to turn it around!

 

yeah...right.

 

Pretty good read.

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/cover-3/2...rong-jay-cutler

 

[nfoligno]

The key statement I disagree w/ is,

 

The more I talked to Greg, the more I believed the Bears would have been better off keeping Kyle Orton and the draft picks.

 

Okay, so Cosell reasons that Cutler may be the best pure passer in the NFL and is in general a great QB. In my mind, that is a player you build around. It is easier to build an offense around a player like that than it is to find a player like that in the first place.

 

If we had Orton, sure, we would have more draft picks. But we would also still have one big hole (QB) we would need to use one of those high draft picks on.

 

That is one of my big "things" I don't believe many consider when talking about what we gave up. If we didn't make the deal, and we had Orton, does anyone believe Orton would have looked good this year? Not knocking Orton, but w/ this OL and the rest, Orton too would have looked like crap. That means we would have likely been looking at a QB w/ our 1st round pick next year. So while we gave up two #1s, I honestly think of it more like one #1, as the 2nd would have likely been used on a QB anyway.

 

And I would MUCH rather have Cutler than any QB Angelo might have chosen to draft next year.

 

Pretty good read.

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/cover-3/2...rong-jay-cutler

 

[ChileBear]

That is one of my big "things" I don't believe many consider when talking about what we gave up. If we didn't make the deal, and we had Orton, does anyone believe Orton would have looked good this year? Not knocking Orton, but w/ this OL and the rest, Orton too would have looked like crap. That means we would have likely been looking at a QB w/ our 1st round pick next year. So while we gave up two #1s, I honestly think of it more like one #1, as the 2nd would have likely been used on a QB anyway.

 

And I would MUCH rather have Cutler than any QB Angelo might have chosen to draft next year.

 

Agree 100%. And we'd be paying big $ for an unknown. The hope from me is that they spend on FA and bring in someone who is in their prime for the OL for starters.

[adam]

I just think, regardless of what people have said, no one expected the Bears to be sitting at 4-7 with Cutler having 20 INTs.

 

What I do agree about in the article is that the Bears scheme is not playing to Cutler's strengths, and he definitely is not in his comfort zone. Add a horrible O-Line and receivers that you don't have full trust in, and that makes for a volatile situation.

[madlithuanian]

"X" takes a square!

 

I just think, regardless of what people have said, no one expected the Bears to be sitting at 4-7 with Cutler having 20 INTs.

 

What I do agree about in the article is that the Bears scheme is not playing to Cutler's strengths, and he definitely is not in his comfort zone. Add a horrible O-Line and receivers that you don't have full trust in, and that makes for a volatile situation.

 

[selection7]

Orton too would have looked like crap. That means we would have likely been looking at a QB w/ our 1st round pick next year.

So then by your logic we are looking at a 1st round QB pick in 2011 to replace Cutler?

 

The key statement I disagree w/ is,

 

The more I talked to Greg, the more I believed the Bears would have been better off keeping Kyle Orton and the draft picks.

 

If we had Orton, sure, we would have more draft picks. But we would also still have one big hole (QB) we would need to use one of those high draft picks on.

When the guy says that, he means because we'd also get to keep Orton as our starting QB, not only because of the draft picks or in spite of him...so that's at least one guy (you can add to me) that thinks QB wouldn't be a "gaping hole" . Clearly Orton is a starting caliber QB, as he's shown it 2 years now and has improved his QB rating every season he's been in the league. It's quite possible Orton would look better than Cutler here now because he's cool under pressure and hates throwing picks; probably not, but the real question is what would look better, this offense, or an Orton led offense with 3 high round draft pick or their equivalent spent on upgrading the OL? And it's an enormous stretch at this point to say Orton (who's still has upside yet to come since he's young) can't helm a SB team when we went to one with Rex, of all people, and stayed right with Indy until almost the 4th quarter. Conventional wisdom is that there was no point making a decent to modest upgrade at QB when you've got enormous "gaping holes" at OL poisoning the offense. But I guess wisdom isn't for everyone .

 

Having said that, Cutler is fun to watch and if only our OL hadn't turned out to be worse than I had imagined, the Cutler deal could have turned out good for both teams. It's not looking likely these days, but I've not given up hope yet. Nfo, however, should have no excuse since he apparently knew all along how bad our OL was going to be.

[nfoligno]

For the record, I never said Orton isn't a good QB, or that he can't be a good QB. But on this offense, I simply do not believe he would have looked good.

 

Look at it this way. The team was not sold on Orton. Even before the Cutler trade, Angelo had made comments indicating he wasn't totally confident w/ Orton as the future of the franchise. I personally do not believe Payton Manning would look good in this offense. I am not knocking Orton when I say he would have struggled. Thus, we would have a QB our GM was not sold on in the first place, who would likely not have a good season on an awful offense. Thus, I think it very likely the team would have chosen to look for a new QB, and likely high in the draft.

 

That isn't to say it would be the rigth or wrong move. Simply what I think would have been the logical thinking of Angelo. This, remember, is the same GM who drafted Benson because he didn't believe TJ was special enough.

 

Thus, I simply believe we would have likely used a 1st round pick next year on a QB, if not this past year. So when we talk about not having a 1st round pick in 2010, I just don't really think of that as a horrible thing, as I believe that pick would have likely been for a QB anyway. And despite how Cutler has played, I think we are much better off w/ Cutler than we would be drafting a rookie QB in the next draft.

 

As for your final statement, Nfo, however, should have no excuse since he apparently knew all along how bad our OL was going to be., while I never thought our OL would be that good, I also did not think it would be THIS bad. I disagreed w/ how we handled the OL in the offseason, but never did I think it would actually be worse than last year. And beyond just the OL, in FF, I actually felt so highly of Forte (in a PPR league) that I would have drafted him as high as #2, and maybe even #1. That is because he did well behind a poor OL last year, and as said, I didn't think our OL would be this bad.

 

I know how you feel about Orton. I know how you feel about Cutler. I do not think you understand how I feel though. I like Orton. Always have. As much as I have always bashed Angelo, I actually said then I felt the Orton pick was a damn good one. I thought it was nuts we didn't give him more of an opportunity when Rex was here, and felt he could be a good QB if we fixed other aspects of the offense.

 

W/ Cutler, I felt we had a QB who could (a) look good behind a less than good OL and ( do more w/ the young weapons we had in place, rather than needing to go out and get stud WRs. I still believe Cutler is all that. IMHO, this OL is simply so bad that even an all-pro QB would look pretty poor behind it. This does not even factor Turner.

 

At the end of the day though, you have to get past what you, I or any other fan may think/thought of Orton. Angelo has never been his biggest supporter, despite having drafted him. Angelo said it all when asked about our O issues, when he said, "its all about the QB". Regardless whether or not Orton is a QB that can get to and win the SB, I don't think Angelo felt this way, and thus, he was most likely to go out and seek a QB who could. If Angelo believed, "its all about the QB" he was most likely then looking to add a QB who would improve the rest of the offense, rather than improve the rest of the offense for the QB.

 

That is why I say we would have drafted a QB. Not because Orton wasn't capable, but because the man in charge never felt he was.

 

So then by your logic we are looking at a 1st round QB pick in 2011 to replace Cutler?

 

 

When the guy says that, he means because we'd also get to keep Orton as our starting QB, not only because of the draft picks or in spite of him...so that's at least one guy (you can add to me) that thinks QB wouldn't be a "gaping hole" . Clearly Orton is a starting caliber QB, as he's shown it 2 years now and has improved his QB rating every season he's been in the league. It's quite possible Orton would look better than Cutler here now because he's cool under pressure and hates throwing picks; probably not, but the real question is what would look better, this offense, or an Orton led offense with 3 high round draft pick or their equivalent spent on upgrading the OL? And it's an enormous stretch at this point to say Orton (who's still has upside yet to come since he's young) can't helm a SB team when we went to one with Rex, of all people, and stayed right with Indy until almost the 4th quarter. Conventional wisdom is that there was no point making a decent to modest upgrade at QB when you've got enormous "gaping holes" at OL poisoning the offense. But I guess wisdom isn't for everyone .

 

Having said that, Cutler is fun to watch and if only our OL hadn't turned out to be worse than I had imagined, the Cutler deal could have turned out good for both teams. It's not looking likely these days, but I've not given up hope yet. Nfo, however, should have no excuse since he apparently knew all along how bad our OL was going to be.

 

[AZ54]

The Bears were nearing the end of their run and headed for rebuilding. Going after Jay Cutler was still the right move IMO. We have a guy with all the physical talents needed, we just need to build the offense around him. Did this accelerate our decline a bit? Perhaps but I think Urlacher (IR) and Harris (inept) have more to do with it than Cutler. Harris was supposed to be our franchise DT and he's not even close. Urlacher is at the end of his career but likely would have had a good season for us except he's not on the field. While Briggs has made it to some Pro Bowls he's not a franchise player and he's far from a team leader.

 

Like I said before, despite the lack of blue chip talent, I think we at least have average talent but our play is far from average. That's where the poor coaching comes into play.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Simply put, Cutler is not getting the same opportunities as he did in Denver (passing, receivers or blocking). They all sorta effect the other. This I blame solely on coaching and entirely on the OC. There has been no creative thinking whatsoever. Another knock people have is about this lack of running game, normally a staple of Bears football. But in Denver, and when Shanahan was there, you could quite literally put anyone in the backfield and make them a 1000 yard back (see Peyton Hillis for proof and a FB no less). That was a result of blocking schemes and the OL makeup. They were the smalles line on average in the NFL for the longest time but were the most effective. So of the OL is "repaired" I think all the rest of the pieces will fall into place to include getting Cutler back to Pro Bowl quality, something Orton has not done.

 

With regards to the Defense, I still believe getting Derrick Brooks back earlier in the season would have fixed alot of the problems on Defense. He knows the system and is no doubt a quality leader.

[defiantgiant]

I really liked Orton and I thought the Cutler trade was a bad idea right after it happened, but I can't say that he was a bad pickup, even considering how much he's struggled this year. Orton and Cutler are just very different players.

 

Orton reminds me of Chad Pennington, in that he plays within his limits and he can make a limited offense at least functional. He's never going to make really spectacular plays, but he can reliably make routine throws even with a lousy surrounding cast.

 

Cutler's the opposite: he can make plays that most other QBs can't (even Urlacher was going nuts about that one Cutler-to-Knox play,) but he'll also screw up routine throws when his offensive line or receivers aren't great. I think Cosell hit it right on the money: Cutler's one of the best pure throwers in the NFL, but he's not going to succeed until the team makes an investment in the rest of the offense.

 

I still think, in the long term, Cutler's going to be a great pickup...it's just that Angelo has to build an offensive line and get a big jump-ball receiver, and now he has to do it without all those picks he traded to Denver.

[nfoligno]

but he's not going to succeed until the team makes an investment in the rest of the offense....it's just that Angelo has to build an offensive line

 

Wouldn't that be true if Orton were under center? Wouldn't that be true regardless who the QB is? It doesn't matter whether you have Farve, Brady or Pennington. You can not simply put a QB on an awful offense and expect him to be great. Regardless who, or what type of QB you have, you have to build around him.

 

I am sure you will say we have fewer picks now, but

 

(a) I would argue you need to build less w/ a QB like Cutler vs a QB like Orton. That is my opinion. You look at Orton doing well this year, but he has an elite OL, and numerous solid or better WRs, not to mention a solid ground game. But I would argue that Cutler doesn't have to have as much talent to make the offense play at a higher level. While I agree a WR upgrade would benefit him, at the same time, I would also argue that he would look pretty damn good now, w/ the WRs we have, if only he had an OL capable of blocking.

 

( I still argue we would have used one of our picks on a QB. I know how Orton looks this year, but how would he look if he were on our offense? Some say he would have fewer picks. Fine. But I would argue he would still look like crap, and as our GM was never sold on him in the first place, there would be little reason to believe he would suddenly be confident in him. Thus, we would likely still be looking to upgrade at QB. So we have fewer picks, but I still argue that one of those picks (likely top pick) would be ear-marked for a QB. Sorry, but I would much rather have Cutler than Tebow or McCoy, or whatever rookie QB you want to throw out there.

 

 

 

I really liked Orton and I thought the Cutler trade was a bad idea right after it happened, but I can't say that he was a bad pickup, even considering how much he's struggled this year. Orton and Cutler are just very different players.

 

Orton reminds me of Chad Pennington, in that he plays within his limits and he can make a limited offense at least functional. He's never going to make really spectacular plays, but he can reliably make routine throws even with a lousy surrounding cast.

 

Cutler's the opposite: he can make plays that most other QBs can't (even Urlacher was going nuts about that one Cutler-to-Knox play,) but he'll also screw up routine throws when his offensive line or receivers aren't great. I think Cosell hit it right on the money: Cutler's one of the best pure throwers in the NFL, but he's not going to succeed until the team makes an investment in the rest of the offense.

 

I still think, in the long term, Cutler's going to be a great pickup...it's just that Angelo has to build an offensive line and get a big jump-ball receiver, and now he has to do it without all those picks he traded to Denver.

 

[selection7]

Nfo, you're basically making the argument that JA needs the "pro bowl" stamp to know he's got talent with a struggling QB...when the OL is that poor. That's an argument I've never heard you make before, but I suppose you could be right. JA isn't known for his offensive player evaluation prowess. I'd like to think (since Cutler's our QB now) that he'd need less OL talent to succeed than Orton, but two first rounders and a 3rd less? ....it doesn't seem likely since Orton had a 92 qb rating going into his mid-season injury last year on a mediocre OL with sub-par rushing and this year has about that again if you take out his emergency game he played injured (in which his play was still light years ahead of that game's starter Chris Simms, for reference, and proof that any QB cannot make it on with Denver's O).

 

In JA's defense, and I've never heard you make this argument, but I always keep it in the back of my mind...I don't think JA ever intended to give up two 1sts, a 3rd, and his up and coming QB with another year left on his cheap-ass contract (that would have given us marvelous depth). Dan Snyder did that to us and JA had the balls to up the ante anyway. Unfortunately, it may have cost him his job. Though consider that having rooks on the OL may have granted Orton some benefit of the doubt in JA's mind, if you're really going to look at him as that simple minded. By next year they'd be 2nd year guys and we'd have another 1st round rookie to mix in (though drafting out of pure need can be dangerous, admittedly, as is that much OL youth, but beggars can't be choosers).

 

I will say this though, you're making an interesting point while still keeping your overall opinion, which is just fine...but I remember you specifically lumping Orton in with our past QB failures at the beginning of the year. I believe "scrub" was the word you used. A couple of months before that you called him weak-armed, which I only remember because it shocked me knowing that you, while I don't agree with your analysis every time, are one of the most knowledgeable on the forums. You never responded to me in that post. Even your post in this thread referred to Orton as a "gaping hole". You just like to use dramatic language then, is that it? Whatever then, I believe you when you say you never disliked Orton, but I'm still calling you out on a little revisionist history.

 

Orton would still be a Bear this year if he had refused to play hurt last year. That's my opinion. He wasn't just banged up, he was hobbling. Although your point that he wouldn't have survived this year isn't without merit, it's tough to predict what could have happened with those draft picks adding to the mix and that also providing some benefit of the doubt.

[nfoligno]

Nfo, you're basically making the argument that JA needs the "pro bowl" stamp to know he's got talent with a struggling QB...when the OL is that poor. That's an argument I've never heard you make before, but I suppose you could be right. JA isn't known for his offensive player evaluation prowess. I'd like to think (since Cutler's our QB now) that he'd need less OL talent to succeed than Orton, but two first rounders and a 3rd less? ....it doesn't seem likely since Orton had a 92 qb rating going into his mid-season injury last year on a mediocre OL with sub-par rushing and this year has about that again if you take out his emergency game he played injured (in which his play was still light years ahead of that game's starter Chris Simms, for reference, and proof that any QB cannot make it on with Denver's O).

 

I am not necessarily saying our QB has to have a pro bowl stamp. What I am saying is JA was not sold on Orton. After the season, what did Angelo saying when asked about our problems on offense. "Its all about the QB." Remember, he had to do a bunch of sidestepping as tons of questions came in after that as to what he thought about Orton. Throw in the little respect/opportunity Orton ever got, and I just do not think JA ever thought too much of Orton. In fact, IMHO, when Denver asked for Orton to be part of the trade, JA likely didn't think about his addition as anything more than a throwaway extra.

 

It isn't that JA needs a pro bowl stamp on a player, but I simply do not believe JA ever saw Orton as a legit franchise QB. Remember, this is the same GM who talked about a "special" RB, and then drafted Benson because he didn't believe TJ was special enough. It isn't that I am saying Orton isn't capable, but that as long as Angelo didn't believe it, we were likely to use one of those draft picks on a QB.

 

In JA's defense, and I've never heard you make this argument, but I always keep it in the back of my mind...I don't think JA ever intended to give up two 1sts, a 3rd, and his up and coming QB with another year left on his cheap-ass contract (that would have given us marvelous depth). Dan Snyder did that to us and JA had the balls to up the ante anyway. Unfortunately, it may have cost him his job. Though consider that having rooks on the OL may have granted Orton some benefit of the doubt in JA's mind, if you're really going to look at him as that simple minded. By next year they'd be 2nd year guys and we'd have another 1st round rookie to mix in (though drafting out of pure need can be dangerous, admittedly, as is that much OL youth, but beggars can't be choosers).

 

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like you are assuming we would have drafted OL last year if we had not made the trade. One, I go back to the quote, "its all about the QB". I think it as likely, if not more, that we may have actually tried to draft a QB last year, rather than OL. Further, I would say to look at Angelo's history. He has never been big on drafting OL. He said himself he believes OL a position/unit that needs a lot of time to develop, and thus why he prefers to sign veterans. Even if we had not made the trade, I don't think you can assume we would have drafted OL high, and thus there is no reason to believe our OL would look better this year, or have better prospects next.

 

As for what he intended to give up for Cutler, who knows. I think it more simply a matter of our not really believing Denver was serious about trading him, and once we found they were, we were willing to pay the piper. You talk about Orton, but I simply believe his value was less in the eyes of Angelo than you think, and thus never really a key factor in the trade, at least not for Angelo.

 

Its sort of like the swap of 5th round picks. To Denver, that likely didn't seem like a big part of the deal, but it resulted in our getting Knox, and thus you could argue (in hindsight) it was a big part of the trade. Ditto w/ Orton. I don't think JA ever thought Orton more than a backup QB, and thus his addition to the trade was simply never valued on our side near what it was for Denver, or has proven to be.

 

I will say this though, you're making an interesting point while still keeping your overall opinion, which is just fine...but I remember you specifically lumping Orton in with our past QB failures at the beginning of the year. I believe "scrub" was the word you used. A couple of months before that you called him weak-armed, which I only remember because it shocked me knowing that you, while I don't agree with your analysis every time, are one of the most knowledgeable on the forums. You never responded to me in that post. Even your post in this thread referred to Orton as a "gaping hole". You just like to use dramatic language then, is that it? Whatever then, I believe you when you say you never disliked Orton, but I'm still calling you out on a little revisionist history.

 

Before you "sort of call me out" please show posts where I came down on Orton to such an extent. I think I have been pretty consistent in supporting Orton. No, I never saw him as a franchise QB. Can't recall who, but someone mentioned Pennington, and I think that is a pretty good comparison. Like Pennington, Orton is a player who needs to be in the right system, with nearly all the pieces in place.

 

You say he played pretty well last year. Yes, he did. I can't tell you how many times I called for him to play over Rex, and talked about his pocket presence. But while I never thought as little of Orton as many, I also never saw him as a great QB. He was one who needed great supporting cast, while I see Cutler as one who can elevate those around him. Unfortunately, the OL is simply so bad that I honestly believe Manning would look bad. But I look at the WRs. W/ Orton, I just don't think WRs ever really developed. W/ Cutler, as poor as the offense is, I think our WRs have done far more in terms of development.

 

Look at Denver last year and this year.

 

This year, with a better run game, Orton has one 300 yard game and zero games w/ 3 or more scores. At this point last year, Cutler had 6 300+ games (not to mention one over 400) and 3 games w/ 3 or more scores.

 

W/ basically the same weapons to work with, Cutler simply did more, and IMHO, that is because he is simply a better QB. That is not a knock on Orton. I think Manning is a better QB than Cutler, but I am not knocking Cutler in that statment. I liked Orton. I just saw in Cutler a more legit franchise QB who could do more with less.

 

Continuing that statement, w/ Cutler, IMHO, if we fix the OL, our offense could really be solid, even w/ the weapons we have now. W/ Orton, I would not only feel the need to fix the OL, but also to add a stud WR.

 

There may have been a time or two when I let off steam, but I honestly do not recall ever truly attacking Orton, or using extreme language. I did that often enough for Rex, but often spoke as positive of Orton as I did negative of Rex.

 

One final point on this. I don't ever recall saying Orton was weak armed. In fact, many times I think I argued he had a better arm than advertised. I specifically recall pointing out that Orton gained a rep among bear fans of a weak arm after a rookie year when he was restricted and asked to not loose games, but said that he had a better arm than we were allowed to see. No, he doesn't have Cutler's arm, but frankly, I think his arm is better than Pennington's, for example.

 

Orton would still be a Bear this year if he had refused to play hurt last year. That's my opinion. He wasn't just banged up, he was hobbling. Although your point that he wouldn't have survived this year isn't without merit, it's tough to predict what could have happened with those draft picks adding to the mix and that also providing some benefit of the doubt.

 

I don't know that he would still be a bear if he didn't come back from injury. Damned if you do.... If he didn't come back sooner, JA may have seen in Orton a player who couldn't play 16 games, and after Rex, may not have had patience. Orton was in a no win situation.

 

Back to the draft picks, again, you are assuming we would have drafted OL. You honestly believe we would go OL in the 1st two years in a row? That goes very much against Angelo's history and comments. I personally think it just as likely we would have tried to draft a QB. Hell, what if we moved up in the draft for Sanchez or Freeman? Would we be better off? Even if we didn't draft a QB, I think we most likely would have drafted a WR in the 1st. W/ this OL, I doubt any rookie WR would have developed at all, and thus I don't think Orton would have found help vie the draft.

 

So I still argue that if we had not made the trade, we would likely be looking at drafting a QB next year, which for me, lessens the amount we gave up.

[defiantgiant]

Wouldn't that be true if Orton were under center? Wouldn't that be true regardless who the QB is? It doesn't matter whether you have Farve, Brady or Pennington. You can not simply put a QB on an awful offense and expect him to be great. Regardless who, or what type of QB you have, you have to build around him.

 

That's true as a general principle, I just think it's more true of Cutler than of most quarterbacks. My point was this: Orton proved last season that he can play capably on a bad offense, but this season, he's only playing somewhat-more-than-capably on a very, very talented offense. He's in the middle of the league in passing yards, 14 TDs to 7 picks, all very respectable, but nothing great. Cutler, I think, can play lights-out on a talented offense or badly on a bad one: there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Orton is all middle ground. If Orton were on our offense this year, I think he could well be playing better than Cutler. If Cutler were in Denver this year, I have no doubt he'd be playing better than Orton.

 

That said, I think the Cutler trade was good. It's just that now we need to set Jay up to be successful; we can't expect him to be Orton and do about the same serviceable job regardless. It's not just that he's struggling on our crappy offense - we got this guy because of what he can do on a good offense. Unless we put that offense together, we're wasting him.

[jason]

Pretty good read.

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/cover-3/2...rong-jay-cutler

 

So, in other words, the Bears' lack of coaching ability is turning Jay Cutler into a mix of Rex Grossman's panic and Kyle Orton's skill-set. Nice.

[jason]

That's true as a general principle, I just think it's more true of Cutler than of most quarterbacks. My point was this: Orton proved last season that he can play capably on a bad offense, but this season, he's only playing somewhat-more-than-capably on a very, very talented offense. He's in the middle of the league in passing yards, 14 TDs to 7 picks, all very respectable, but nothing great. Cutler, I think, can play lights-out on a talented offense or badly on a bad one: there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Orton is all middle ground. If Orton were on our offense this year, I think he could well be playing better than Cutler. If Cutler were in Denver this year, I have no doubt he'd be playing better than Orton.

 

That said, I think the Cutler trade was good. It's just that now we need to set Jay up to be successful; we can't expect him to be Orton and do about the same serviceable job regardless. It's not just that he's struggling on our crappy offense - we got this guy because of what he can do on a good offense. Unless we put that offense together, we're wasting him.

 

Very interesting idea, and I think I agree with it.

 

With Orton, he knows he can't fit the ball in there, so he goes for the safest play he can think of. With a supporting cast that isn't great, that results in bad offense that makes the QB look average talent-wise.

 

With Cutler, he thinks he can fit the ball in there, so he fires it in and takes chances when the success percentage is not high. With a supporting cast that isn't great, that results in a bad offense that makes a QB look like a poor decision maker, despite the raw talent.

[defiantgiant]

Very interesting idea, and I think I agree with it.

 

With Orton, he knows he can't fit the ball in there, so he goes for the safest play he can think of. With a supporting cast that isn't great, that results in bad offense that makes the QB look average talent-wise.

 

With Cutler, he thinks he can fit the ball in there, so he fires it in and takes chances when the success percentage is not high. With a supporting cast that isn't great, that results in a bad offense that makes a QB look like a poor decision maker, despite the raw talent.

Yeah, exactly. When they tell Cutler not to take chances (like they clearly did in the last three games) he's pretty unspectacular. The whole reason to get him was that, if you give him enough help and let him take those chances, he'll complete those low-percentage throws often enough for it to make a big difference. If we weren't going to make an investment on offense and we didn't want our quarterback to take a risk when he thought he could make it, why did we trade for Cutler in the first place? Why not just keep Orton and let him check down to Forte twenty times a game? I think Cutler will be worth it next year and from then on, but not until they get him the pieces he needs to take those risks successfully.

[nfoligno]

I understand what you are saying, but.....

 

While Orton "might" be better able to avoid turnovers, I think he would also really struggle to pickup 1st downs and move the ball, much less score. Lets say Orton does prioritize avoiding turnovers. That means he is often throwing it away, or simply taking the sack. While that may sound good, it also leads to a lot of 3 and outs. W/ a defense like ours, that is simply going to kill a team. Just avoiding turnovers does not mean a QB, or an offense, is getting it done.

 

How many games might Orton have like 150 yards passing if he simply avoided turnovers? W/ a ground game that is lucky to get you 50 yards, how often is that going to equate to points, much less wins.

 

So maybe Orton does avoid some of the turnovers Cutler has thrown. At the same time, I also think Orton would fail to move the ball and our offense would fail to score. In the end, the result is likely the same.

 

I do agree on Cutler. His ceiling is simply much higher. Orton, on a good day, is a 250 yard and 2 score passer. Even this year w/ all his weapons, that would still be considered a very good day for him. Cutler is a 300 yard and 3 score type QB. This is the ceiling aspect. If you look at the floor aspect, Orton may have fewer turnovers, but fewer overall stats as well. On a bad day, Orton is a 150 yard and zero score QB. Even when Cutler was throwing the picks, he was moving the ball and putting up yards, as well as at least one score, and often more.

 

Both are frustrating as hell, but I just do not think our offense would be any better this year w/ Orton under center. I think Orton would have many games w/ 150 yards or less, and no scores. The lack of picks sounds nice, but in the end, both end up as losses.

 

That's true as a general principle, I just think it's more true of Cutler than of most quarterbacks. My point was this: Orton proved last season that he can play capably on a bad offense, but this season, he's only playing somewhat-more-than-capably on a very, very talented offense. He's in the middle of the league in passing yards, 14 TDs to 7 picks, all very respectable, but nothing great. Cutler, I think, can play lights-out on a talented offense or badly on a bad one: there doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Orton is all middle ground. If Orton were on our offense this year, I think he could well be playing better than Cutler. If Cutler were in Denver this year, I have no doubt he'd be playing better than Orton.

 

That said, I think the Cutler trade was good. It's just that now we need to set Jay up to be successful; we can't expect him to be Orton and do about the same serviceable job regardless. It's not just that he's struggling on our crappy offense - we got this guy because of what he can do on a good offense. Unless we put that offense together, we're wasting him.

 

[madlithuanian]

Bingo!

 

Prepare for at least another year of the same...

 

So, in other words, the Bears' lack of coaching ability is turning Jay Cutler into a mix of Rex Grossman's panic and Kyle Orton's skill-set. Nice.

 

[selection7]

First, I understand the logic that Angelo wouldn't have carried out due diligence with respect to OL drafting or wouldn't have had the wisdom to support Orton. But the nature of the question here is what should JA have done, so that's not a particularly interesting argument is it? and "he should have kept Orton and drafted OL" is an appropriate alternative for debate. I'm not sure you want to hang your hat on JAs alleged cluelessness as a basis for your recent Cutler/Orton arguments with me. Especially since your commentary has been well more derogatory than you ever admit when directly replying to me. This very thread...Orton would be a "gaping hole". I didn't have to look far did I? Earlier this season suggesting having Orton rather than Cutler's worst performance as a pro vs. GB wouldn't have won us that game we barely lost.

And you made me do it!

Before you "sort of call me out"...

http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...ic=4563&hl=

"He simply didn't have the arm to be a legit long ball QB, and thus took fewer chances."

Not having the arm to attempt even one deep pass per game on average (Orton had 11 in 15 games) suggests a weak arm my friend. In your defense, you may not have meant it that disparagingly, but they were your words.

 

http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...ic=5071&hl=

"Second, I would say that it is harder to develop a young WR when you lack a good QB. With QBs like Rex, Orton and all the rest of the scrubs we have thrown out there, you need WRs to help prop up the QB..."

 

There were more gems from you, Nfo. Some of them only take going through my past responses to you.

 

The bottom line is that there was a throng of fans/media breathlessly praising our new savior QB while rewriting history and slagging off Orton to ridiculous extents (I had no problem with the ordinary type of slagging). You were, sure not always, but all too often, part of that. (To anyone) Have your opinions, be ridiculous if you want, you don't even have to eat crow if you'd rather just move on, but don't come back months later and try to sell me that it never happened. When you say things like "I never said Orton isn't a good QB" and "I think I've been pretty consistent in supporting Orton", you're either deluding yourself or lying.

[selection7]

I am not necessarily saying our QB has to have a pro bowl stamp. What I am saying is JA was not sold on Orton.

Actually you are. How does he know Cutler is much better than he's looked? Pro Bowl stamp. How did he so undervalue Orton playing injured with a mediocre supporting cast? No Pro Bowl stamp. Although I think you greatly overestimate how down JA was on Orton, nevertheless, if that's your assumption, then I think just it proves my point.

 

Also, you use wordings like "never saw him as a franchise QB" and "he is simply a better QB". If that was all you ever said, nfo, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but that's been your m.o. in responses to me...to color your past statement in a less insulting light and to basically rebut accusations I never even made (a straw man argument). I'm very specifically talking about whether Cutler, and a fifth for Orton, two 1sts, & a third was a good deal considering our terrible OL needs. wrt this discusiion, I don't care if Orton isn't a franchise QB or Cutler is simply better, nor did I ever say otherwise.

 

And why use such selective stats as arguments when there are so many to consider? For every stat you give, I can give you two why you undervalue Orton wrt Cutler. I'm not interested in trading off like that.

 

I think his arm is better than Pennington's...

Ok, that one made me laugh. A guy with an injured and surgically ravaged arm who is infamous for being noodle armed? This is exactly the type of stuff I'm talking about, Nfo. Apparently in your mind that was showing that you are fair minded? It doesn't come off that way to others...unless that was tongue in cheek. I hope so.

 

I read a columnists column the other day where he non-chalantly tossed off that Cutler's boring numbers last week were, sure, the sort of thing you get from typical, boring Orton, but not good enough. I thought "yeah right", and sure enough, Orton has never thrown for single digit completions (Cutler's had 8...and we won) all season, and the one time he threw for as little as 11, he also had 2 TDs & no picks, 50 more passing yards and a 134 QB rating. In this very thread someone referred to Orton as nothing more than a checkdown QB (I forget the actual words used). Never mind the fact that Orton is hitting 40+% of his passes from both 20-30 yards out and 30-40 yards out on 29 pass atempts in those regions compared to Cutler's 34. I'm not being some conspiracy theorist here. People really do have distorted ideas.

[nfoligno]

First, I understand the logic that Angelo wouldn't have carried out due diligence with respect to OL drafting or wouldn't have had the wisdom to support Orton. But the nature of the question here is what should JA have done, so that's not a particularly interesting argument is it? and "he should have kept Orton and drafted OL" is an appropriate alternative for debate. I'm not sure you want to hang your hat on JAs alleged cluelessness as a basis for your recent Cutler/Orton arguments with me. Especially since your commentary has been well more derogatory than you ever admit when directly replying to me. This very thread...Orton would be a "gaping hole". I didn't have to look far did I? Earlier this season suggesting having Orton rather than Cutler's worst performance as a pro vs. GB wouldn't have won us that game we barely lost.

And you made me do it!

 

My point is not to simply "hang my hat on JA" but to use some level of realism w/ what we "should have done" mixed in. It is always nice to talk about a perfect world, but that world doesn't exist. If you want to talk about the "what ifs" of keeping Orton and the picks, I think you also have to consider what would have been likely if we had done that. I simply argue that it is not likely we would have addressed the OL different than we did, and thus Orton would be playing behind this OL.

 

http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...ic=4563&hl=

"He simply didn't have the arm to be a legit long ball QB, and thus took fewer chances."

Not having the arm to attempt even one deep pass per game on average (Orton had 11 in 15 games) suggests a weak arm my friend. In your defense, you may not have meant it that disparagingly, but they were your words.

 

I believe you said though that I said Orton was a weak armed QB. There is a big difference between saying Orton doesn't have the arm to be a long ball QB and saying he is weak armed. Orton can take shots deep, but no, I do not think he has the arm to do such consistently. When Orton does throw deep, you can see the increased arc on his passes, which a QB lacking a great arm will do. But again, you argued that I said he was a weak armed QB, and I didn't. It is one thing to say a QB doesn't have the arm strength to be a legit long ball passer, and another to say he is weak armed.

 

http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...ic=5071&hl=

"Second, I would say that it is harder to develop a young WR when you lack a good QB. With QBs like Rex, Orton and all the rest of the scrubs we have thrown out there, you need WRs to help prop up the QB..."

 

Again, I don't think you fairly took into account what I said. I was not calling orton a scrub. What I was in fact saying, or meaning to say above, is the rest of the QBs are scrubs. Rather than likes all the QBs like Hutch, Cade, Quinn, etc., I simply lumped them all together in the scrub category.

 

As for the first part, yes, I do believe WRs develop w/ a QB like Cutler more so than they would a QB like Orton. I probably should have said "great" rather than "good". I do think orton is a good QB, but he is simply not great.

 

There were more gems from you, Nfo. Some of them only take going through my past responses to you.

 

I don't know about gems. You said I called Orton weak armed and a scrub, but I don't think even these posts you use prove that. Also, I would argue that while you might be able to find some negative posts, they would not reflect my comments as a whole. I have always supported Orton, especially as Rex was starting. I said all along we were better off w/ Orton. After we traded for Cutler, you can likely find more posts that you will consider negative, but they were only so in a comparative manner. I liked, and still like, Orton. I simply believe Cutler is a superior QB. That is far more a pro on Cutler than a con on Orton.

 

The bottom line is that there was a throng of fans/media breathlessly praising our new savior QB while rewriting history and slagging off Orton to ridiculous extents (I had no problem with the ordinary type of slagging). You were, sure not always, but all too often, part of that. (To anyone) Have your opinions, be ridiculous if you want, you don't even have to eat crow if you'd rather just move on, but don't come back months later and try to sell me that it never happened. When you say things like "I never said Orton isn't a good QB" and "I think I've been pretty consistent in supporting Orton", you're either deluding yourself or lying.

 

Sorry, but this is simply BS. I posted for several years that Orton should (a) be part of a legit competition w/ Rex and ( that Orton should start over Rex. I spoke often about how much better his pocket presence was then Rex. After we added Cutler, yes, I thought we upgraded, and said so often, but that doesn't mean I suddenly hated Orton. Sorry, but if you ask any NFL person, they will tell you Cutler has a much stronger arm. Even our players talked about that. Many players and NFL guys talk about how Cutler can "make all the throws". When did you ever hear anyone say that of Orton. I think you confuse hating Orton w/ liking Cutler.

 

When you talk about "deluding yourself" I would argue that is just what you are doing if you believe Orton would be successful behind this OL, w/ our run game as poor as it is.

 

[nfoligno]

Actually you are. How does he know Cutler is much better than he's looked? Pro Bowl stamp. How did he so undervalue Orton playing injured with a mediocre supporting cast? No Pro Bowl stamp. Although I think you greatly overestimate how down JA was on Orton, nevertheless, if that's your assumption, then I think just it proves my point.

 

Only 3 QBs make the pro bowl, right? That doesn't mean a QB has to be in the pro bowl to be considered a franchise, or potential franchise QB. Its not just that JA didn't feel Orton "was" a franchise QB, but that he didn't believe Orton had the potential to be a "franchise QB".

 

Also, you use wordings like "never saw him as a franchise QB" and "he is simply a better QB". If that was all you ever said, nfo, we wouldn't be having this discussion, but that's been your m.o. in responses to me...to color your past statement in a less insulting light and to basically rebut accusations I never even made (a straw man argument). I'm very specifically talking about whether Cutler, and a fifth for Orton, two 1sts, & a third was a good deal considering our terrible OL needs. wrt this discusiion, I don't care if Orton isn't a franchise QB or Cutler is simply better, nor did I ever say otherwise.

 

One. Yes, I believe Cutler is worth what we gave up for him.

 

Two. I disagree when you say it doesn't matter what we would have done w/ the picks, or whether Orton is a franchise QB. That isn't accepting reality. If Angelo had a proven track record of not only drafting OL, but "hitting" when he did, the situation would likely be different. If that were the case, Orton would have looked better, and QB may not have been considered a key need for us. But that isn't reality. Reality is, we lack the ability to put forward an elite OL, and thus the need for a QB who didn't need an elite OL was greater.

 

Further, I think it absolutely matters what the GM of our team believes. If the GM of our team is not a fan of our QB, and further states that, "its all about the QB" then I think it very likely we would use a high pick, likely a 1st round pick, on a QB. If you are doing that, then (a) Orton value to the bears is less and ( one of the two #1s you are giving up would have been used on a QB anyway.

 

You can argue this doesn't matter, but I believe it does. I am sure you want to argue Cutler wasn't worth 2 1st round OL, which we could have drafted, but I just don't think that is realistic. I think it far more realistic to ask whether Cutler was worth a 1st round WR and a 1st round QB, which is what I think we would have done w/ those two picks. I think Cutler is absolutely worth more. I know you believe otherwise, but I am giving you my point of view. Angelo would have used a 1st round pick on a QB, and thus the value of that pick is less in my mind.

 

Ok, that one made me laugh. A guy with an injured and surgically ravaged arm who is infamous for being noodle armed? This is exactly the type of stuff I'm talking about, Nfo. Apparently in your mind that was showing that you are fair minded? It doesn't come off that way to others...unless that was tongue in cheek. I hope so.

 

This was regarding Pennington. For the record, I was thinking of Pennington w/o any injuries. Pennington was never considered to have a great arm, but frankly, I always disagreed w/ the noodle-arm stuff. Didn't Pennington play w/ Moss in college, and didn't Moss catch plenty of deep balls? I am sorry, but you want to talk about fair minded and how I come off. Over the years, when listening to ESPN, Fox Sports, CNNSI, NFL Network, whoever you want, have any talked about Orton as having gream arm strength? Not that I recall. In fact, I recall many who speak to the opposite. I often enough defended Orton, as I never felt his arm was nearly as weak as others argued. I think Orton has average arm strength. Not weak, but not strong either. Cutler is considered to have maybe the strongest arm in the NFL, but for some reason, you seem to believe they are equal, and any who doesn't think Orton has equal arm strength is being negative. Come on man. Orton can throw a deep ball, but he does so w/ a greater level of arc, and the more arc, the less accuracy. Cutler, and our own WRs have talked about this, damn near throws a 40 yard pass on a rope.

 

I read a columnists column the other day where he non-chalantly tossed off that Cutler's boring numbers last week were, sure, the sort of thing you get from typical, boring Orton, but not good enough. I thought "yeah right", and sure enough, Orton has never thrown for single digit completions (Cutler's had 8...and we won) all season, and the one time he threw for as little as 11, he also had 2 TDs & no picks, 50 more passing yards and a 134 QB rating. In this very thread someone referred to Orton as nothing more than a checkdown QB (I forget the actual words used). Never mind the fact that Orton is hitting 40+% of his passes from both 20-30 yards out and 30-40 yards out on 29 pass atempts in those regions compared to Cutler's 34. I'm not being some conspiracy theorist here. People really do have distorted ideas.

 

Sorry, but just throwing out these numbers ignores the offensive challenges each faces. It is a little tougher to throw a downfield pass w/ accuracy when you have a DE in your face (Cutler) compared to when you have enough time in the pocket to tie your shoes. It is also not considering that Orton has a playmaker like Marshall, who can really go up and get the ball, while Cutler has less developed WRs who have enough trouble catching balls that hit their hands, when they are open, let alone jump balls when covered. And it doesn't take into consideration that Orton benefits from a solid ground game, preventing teams from focusing too much on one area, while we have the worst rushing attack in the NFL, and defenses don't have to stack the box or worry about the run.

 

One more thing about Orton's numbers. You excuse his latter part of the season last year due to coming back from injury too soon, but what is the reason for his big drop in numbers in the 2nd half of the season this year. Many analyists say that once DCs got film on Orton and Denver's scheme, they were able to adapt and deal w/ it better, and a key was taking away the underneath patterns which hurt Orton's overall game. He wasn't able to consistently hit deep, and w/o the shorter patterns, Denver simply wasn't effective.

 

In his first 6 games, Cutler had 8 TDs and 1 pick. He put up solid yards each game, w/ his only lower yardage game being a blowout win.

 

In his last 6 games, Cutler has 5 TDs and 6 picks. He has broken 200 yards only twice, and his passer rating has dropped as well.

 

Point here is honestly not to bash Orton, but you continue to point out how great he looks in Denver, but his star is not nearly what it was earlier in the season.

[selection7]

My point is not to simply "hang my hat on JA" but to use some level of realism w/ what we "should have done" mixed in.

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing. Any other of your commentary wrt this will be considered with this in mind, which is fine, but it would be better if you'd admit it.

 

It is one thing to say a QB doesn't have the arm strength to be a legit long ball passer, and another to say he is weak armed.

I shouldn't have to repeat myself. "Not having the arm to attempt even one deep pass per game on average (Orton had 11 in 15 games) suggests a weak arm my friend." Context matters. Saying "well I should have worded it better" would be reasonable, but you didn't even do that.

 

What I was in fact saying, or meaning to say above, is the rest of the QBs are scrubs.

"and the rest of the scrubs" is inclusive of what precedes it. You're basically saying but that's not what I meant. Only you can know for sure, but your benefit of the doubt is gone at this point and that's not my fault.

 

I probably should have said "great" rather than "good".

Wow, I was wondering how many topics/posts I'd have to go through with you to get you to admit you were wrong about anything. At least you've done it now and I commend you, at least I "probably" commend you.

 

I don't know about gems. You said I called Orton weak armed and a scrub, but I don't think even these posts you use prove that.

Your rebuttles don't even come close to allowing you to start talking like that. You have to earn it.

 

I have always supported Orton, ...".

Remember what I said about not telling me it never happened? It doesn't work that way.

 

After we added Cutler, yes, I thought we upgraded, and said so often, but that doesn't mean I suddenly hated Orton. ...is just what you are doing if you believe Orton would be successful behind this OL, w/ our run game as poor as it is

The straw man rears his ugly head. That doens't work on me. It never has, so stop trying.

 

Many players and NFL guys talk about how Cutler can "make all the throws". When did you ever hear anyone say that of Orton.

If your point is that no one talks of Orton having a good arm (though you use the "can make all the throws" to make it go down easier), then actaully yes I have heard that. I heard the sportscaster talk of Pep or Ron having to get Orton to come off the ball on his shorter throws so his recievers can catch it. I've heard talk that Orton's arm was up there with Rex's. Best yet, check http://bleacherreport.com/articles/221109-...us-the-evidence

I know you spend more of your day than I do chasing down Bears' news so I don't believe your claim of ignorance.