The Cutler Effect

[adam]

I just took a look at some of the receivers stats from the Broncos and Bears from 2008 to 2009. I was surprised at the huge dropoff from Royal (down 58 receptions and over 660 yards from a year ago). Now I know there are still 4 games to play, but that is a huge dropoff. Marshall and Scheffler are both down as well. There is a good chance that Marshall will be the only Bronco with more than 500 yards receiving.

 

Compare that to Hester and Olsen, who both will surpass their 2008 totals (Hester already has). Even Forte is on tap to beat his 2008 totals for receiving. We will also more than likely have 5 receivers (including Forte), break 500 yards receiving.

 

Player - 2008 / 2009 (4 games remaining)

Marshall -104-1265 / 65-808

Scheffler - 40-645 / 28-342

Royal - 91-980 / 33-314

Total - 235-2890 / 126-1464

 

Player - 2008 / 2009 (4 games remaining)

Hester - 51-665 / 54-682

Olsen - 54-574 / 49-449

Total - 105-1239 / 103-1131

 

Now I know this is a lost season, and we have some huge changes to make, but at least on the surface it looks like Cutler is making the receivers better.

 

 

[nfoligno]

Agreed, and I think you have to look at more than just Hester and Olsen.

 

Bennett barely got on the field last year, but now has 45 catches for 600 yards, and projects to have 60-800. That is not bad for his first year playing.

 

And how about Knox. He has 36 for 415 and projects to have about 50-550. When was the last time we had a rookie Wrs get half that production.

 

I am not sure how much I would say Olsen has really developed this year beyond last, but I would argue we have seen pretty solid development from Hester, Bennett and Knox.

 

In 2005, only one WR had more than 40 catches (Moose 64). 2nd was Gage w/ 31.

 

In 2006, Moose had 60 and Berrian 50.

 

In 2007, Moose had 71, and the only other to have 50 was AP.

 

In 2008, a RB led w/ 60, while two others (Hester/Olsen) just barely cracked 50.

 

This year, we have 3 receivers (Hester, Bennett and Olsen) all on pace to have over 60 catches). That is truly unique for this team.

 

We have struggled to see development from our WRs over the years, and that is one area I think we can really credit Cutler.

 

I just took a look at some of the receivers stats from the Broncos and Bears from 2008 to 2009. I was surprised at the huge dropoff from Royal (down 58 receptions and over 660 yards from a year ago). Now I know there are still 4 games to play, but that is a huge dropoff. Marshall and Scheffler are both down as well. There is a good chance that Marshall will be the only Bronco with more than 500 yards receiving.

 

Compare that to Hester and Olsen, who both will surpass their 2008 totals (Hester already has). Even Forte is on tap to beat his 2008 totals for receiving. We will also more than likely have 5 receivers (including Forte), break 500 yards receiving.

 

Player - 2008 / 2009 (4 games remaining)

Marshall -104-1265 / 65-808

Scheffler - 40-645 / 28-342

Royal - 91-980 / 33-314

Total - 235-2890 / 126-1464

 

Player - 2008 / 2009 (4 games remaining)

Hester - 51-665 / 54-682

Olsen - 54-574 / 49-449

Total - 105-1239 / 103-1131

 

Now I know this is a lost season, and we have some huge changes to make, but at least on the surface it looks like Cutler is making the receivers better.

[defiantgiant]

Also, one thing that's been lost in all the talk about interceptions and the running game is that the Bears' offense doesn't go three-and-out HALF as often as they did last season. For all Cutler's faults, he's been picking up a lot more first downs through the air than Orton ever did: Cutler's thrown 127 through 12 games, whereas Orton only threw 141 all season in 2008. If they can fix the run-blocking, so Forte can punch it in when they get in the red zone (instead of Cutler having to throw the ball on 1st and goal,) this could be an effective offense next year.

['TD']

Aren't all of these number scewed by the fact that the Bears decline in the running game this year?

 

The Bears are averaging basically the same first downs per game 16.5 last year and 16.2 this year. The Bears had 295.9 offensive yards per game last year and 309.2. Scoring is down this year to 19.4 from 23.1 last year.

 

 

 

[defiantgiant]

Aren't all of these number scewed by the fact that the Bears decline in the running game this year?

 

The Bears are averaging basically the same first downs per game 16.5 last year and 16.2 this year. The Bears had 295.9 offensive yards per game last year and 309.2. Scoring is down this year to 19.4 from 23.1 last year.

 

True, the Bears are having to get most of their first downs through the air this year. I was just using first down numbers because I don't have situational stats for three-and-outs - subjectively, it seems like there have been a lot fewer of those. Still, it's clear that the passing game is significantly more effective at picking up yards and first downs than it was in 2008; if we can get the run game up to even a league-average level next year, we could have a pretty effective offense.

[Sense-A]

The Cutler effect = interception

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

The Cutler effect = interception

Yeah, I hate how ignorant and clueless some of this fan base is. The WR's aren't even running to where they should be. Olsen can't catch a f***ing cold. The OL is continuously putting Jay in 3rd and forever's. When it's 3rd and 15, you can't just be conservative.

[jason]

The Cutler effect = interception

 

That is the most uninformed post of the last week. Congrats!

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I just took a look at some of the receivers stats from the Broncos and Bears from 2008 to 2009. I was surprised at the huge dropoff from Royal (down 58 receptions and over 660 yards from a year ago). Now I know there are still 4 games to play, but that is a huge dropoff. Marshall and Scheffler are both down as well. There is a good chance that Marshall will be the only Bronco with more than 500 yards receiving.

 

Compare that to Hester and Olsen, who both will surpass their 2008 totals (Hester already has). Even Forte is on tap to beat his 2008 totals for receiving. We will also more than likely have 5 receivers (including Forte), break 500 yards receiving.

 

Player - 2008 / 2009 (4 games remaining)

Marshall -104-1265 / 65-808

Scheffler - 40-645 / 28-342

Royal - 91-980 / 33-314

Total - 235-2890 / 126-1464

 

Player - 2008 / 2009 (4 games remaining)

Hester - 51-665 / 54-682

Olsen - 54-574 / 49-449

Total - 105-1239 / 103-1131

 

Now I know this is a lost season, and we have some huge changes to make, but at least on the surface it looks like Cutler is making the receivers better.

Cutler has done a lot, but don't let the numbers fool you. Our WR's have not played very well this year.

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

I just took a look at some of the receivers stats from the Broncos and Bears from 2008 to 2009. I was surprised at the huge dropoff from Royal (down 58 receptions and over 660 yards from a year ago). Now I know there are still 4 games to play, but that is a huge dropoff. Marshall and Scheffler are both down as well. There is a good chance that Marshall will be the only Bronco with more than 500 yards receiving.

 

Compare that to Hester and Olsen, who both will surpass their 2008 totals (Hester already has). Even Forte is on tap to beat his 2008 totals for receiving. We will also more than likely have 5 receivers (including Forte), break 500 yards receiving.

 

Player - 2008 / 2009 (4 games remaining)

Marshall -104-1265 / 65-808

Scheffler - 40-645 / 28-342

Royal - 91-980 / 33-314

Total - 235-2890 / 126-1464

 

Player - 2008 / 2009 (4 games remaining)

Hester - 51-665 / 54-682

Olsen - 54-574 / 49-449

Total - 105-1239 / 103-1131

 

Now I know this is a lost season, and we have some huge changes to make, but at least on the surface it looks like Cutler is making the receivers better.

I'll take less yardage and less interceptions and more wins. Denver is better this year than last and Chicago is worst this year than last. He might make recievers have better stats, but HE LEADS THE LEAGUE IN INTS. Cutler sucks this year, maybe not next year.

[KiLoc69]

I'll take less yardage and less interceptions and more wins. Denver is better this year than last and Chicago is worst this year than last.

 

Thanks to the Kyle for Jay trade, right?

 

2008 Denver Broncos Scoring Defense - 30th in the league

2009 Denver Broncos Scoring Defense - 5th in the league

 

2008 Denver Broncos Total Yards Defense - 29th in the league

2009 Denver Broncos Total Yards Defense - 3rd in the league

 

Please people, just spouting off that Kyle is a winner and Jay is a loser because of their records is just lazy. Their situations are much more nuanced than that.

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

Thanks to the Kyle for Jay trade, right?

 

2008 Denver Broncos Scoring Defense - 30th in the league

2009 Denver Broncos Scoring Defense - 5th in the league

 

2008 Denver Broncos Total Yards Defense - 29th in the league

2009 Denver Broncos Total Yards Defense - 3rd in the league

 

Please people, just spouting off that Kyle is a winner and Jay is a loser because of their records is just lazy. Their situations are much more nuanced than that.

Please people know the facts. Kyle has a winning record every year he has played in the NFL (ain't that interesting). Cutler has a loosing record in the NFL. Kyle Orton will never throw as many ints as Cutler. But you can post the defenseive yards stats, but you do not like the interceptions AND records stats? Well guess whats more important than def. yard stats, I'll tell you, the int. and win stats. What do they say "the team with the most turnovers usually looses, but NEVER do they say the team with the least yards looses. I live here in Colorado Cutler LEADS the nfl in ints.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Please people know the facts. Kyle has a winning record every year he has played in the NFL (ain't that interesting). Cutler has a loosing record in the NFL. Kyle Orton will never throw as many ints as Cutler. But you can post the defenseive yards stats, but you do not like the interceptions AND records stats? Well guess whats more important than def. yard stats, I'll tell you, the int. and win stats. What do they say "the team with the most turnovers usually looses, but NEVER do they say the team with the least yards looses. I live here in Colorado Cutler LEADS the nfl in ints.

Let me try to slow this down for you, sir. Here's a scenario:

 

Cutler throws a TD.

The Bears D gives up a TD.

Cutler throws a TD with 3 minutes left.

The Bears D give up a TD with 1:30 left.

Cutler throws an INT.

 

Is that his fault? Partly. But if the defense would've gotten a stop, he wouldn't have tried to force a throw. Having inept WR's doesn't help the cause either. This year, Denver is getting plenty of stops for Orton and allowing him to move the ball patiently. He isn't being forced to win them games like Cutler is being forced to.

[defiantgiant]

Please people know the facts. Kyle has a winning record every year he has played in the NFL (ain't that interesting). Cutler has a loosing record in the NFL. Kyle Orton will never throw as many ints as Cutler. But you can post the defenseive yards stats, but you do not like the interceptions AND records stats? Well guess whats more important than def. yard stats, I'll tell you, the int. and win stats. What do they say "the team with the most turnovers usually looses, but NEVER do they say the team with the least yards looses. I live here in Colorado Cutler LEADS the nfl in ints.

 

Let's just get this out of the way: wins are not a stat, unless you're talking about a team. No quarterback in the history of the NFL has ever gone out on the field by himself and gotten a win. Cutler's wins in the NFL? Zero. Orton's wins? Zero. Wins are a team stat, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL STAT. Thank you for your time.

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

Let's just get this out of the way: wins are not a stat, unless you're talking about a team. No quarterback in the history of the NFL has ever gone out on the field by himself and gotten a win. Cutler's wins in the NFL? Zero. Orton's wins? Zero. Wins are a team stat, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL STAT. Thank you for your time.

Since you thanked me for my time I decided to be nice to you and give you some more time. WINS are the most important stat. The team with the most wins earns top spot.Which top 10 qb's in nfl history have the most wins? Their probably all in the hall of fame. Everytime they talk about a qb, the first thing they talk about is his wins,then his td's and int's, and MAYBE, MAYBE a few like you about his teams defense of yards. Thats not a way to rate a qb, on their defense stats. Our defense sucks because of many reasons, and one main reason why is because the int's Cutler thows(putting defense back on the field). Hopefully Cutler will turn it around in time for next season.

[jason]

Since you thanked me for my time I decided to be nice to you and give you some more time. WINS are the most important stat. The team with the most wins earns top spot.Which top 10 qb's in nfl history have the most wins? Their probably all in the hall of fame. Everytime they talk about a qb, the first thing they talk about is his wins,then his td's and int's, and MAYBE, MAYBE a few like you about his teams defense of yards. Thats not a way to rate a qb, on their defense stats. Our defense sucks because of many reasons, and one main reason why is because the int's Cutler thows(putting defense back on the field). Hopefully Cutler will turn it around in time for next season.

 

There is no doubting this concept, but it's ignorant to compare Cutler and Orton how you have done. If anything, the constant 3-and-outs that the Bears had under Orton last year were worse than the INTs from Cutler. At least with Cutler there is a threat to score.

['TD']

There is no doubting this concept, but it's ignorant to compare Cutler and Orton how you have done. If anything, the constant 3-and-outs that the Bears had under Orton last year were worse than the INTs from Cutler. At least with Cutler there is a threat to score.

 

***This year the Bears have .268 first downs per play. Last year the Bears had .282 first downs per play. ***

***Last year the Bears had .0.380 points per play. This year its down to .318 points per play.***

 

Ok now that we have the boring stats out of the way.

 

The Bears had more first downs per play last year, mildly which kicks out the notion that Orton's offenses stalled more then the offense this year. I couldn't find a 3 and out stat, but i think first down per play may be even more significant.

 

They scored a significant more points per play than last year. Cutlers threat of scoring is just that, a threat. He's not any more lethal this year than last years offense of the Bears.

 

INT's just kill a team. They are not better than 3 and outs even if the team had more last year. They are momentum shifters. They give the other team better field position, and in Cutler's red zone issues, it takes points off the board.

 

I understand people love Cutler, and I really hope he has a bright future. I just don't see why people have to make up things like the 3 and outs. Why they have to lie to themselves and say Orton is/was mediocre to make them feel better about Cutler as someone said earlier. Or why people have to justify everything that Cutler does by placing the blame on other Bears or degrading old Bears.

 

-Cutler is playing like crap this year.

-The offense was actually better last year.

-Orton lead a better offense last year.

 

Those are just facts. Cutler has potential to make this offense great one day. He and the rest of the offense are just crap today.

 

 

[NAMEDSONPAYTON2]

***This year the Bears have .268 first downs per play. Last year the Bears had .282 first downs per play. ***

***Last year the Bears had .0.380 points per play. This year its down to .318 points per play.***

 

Ok now that we have the boring stats out of the way.

 

The Bears had more first downs per play last year, mildly which kicks out the notion that Orton's offenses stalled more then the offense this year. I couldn't find a 3 and out stat, but i think first down per play may be even more significant.

 

They scored a significant more points per play than last year. Cutlers threat of scoring is just that, a threat. He's not any more lethal this year than last years offense of the Bears.

 

INT's just kill a team. They are not better than 3 and outs even if the team had more last year. They are momentum shifters. They give the other team better field position, and in Cutler's red zone issues, it takes points off the board.

 

I understand people love Cutler, and I really hope he has a bright future. I just don't see why people have to make up things like the 3 and outs. Why they have to lie to themselves and say Orton is/was mediocre to make them feel better about Cutler as someone said earlier. Or why people have to justify everything that Cutler does by placing the blame on other Bears or degrading old Bears.

 

-Cutler is playing like crap this year.

-The offense was actually better last year.

-Orton lead a better offense last year.

 

Those are just facts. Cutler has potential to make this offense great one day. He and the rest of the offense are just crap today.

Bingo to perfection!! Thats what I am trying to get accross. I want Cutler to have success, but I am not going to lie to myself and others about how good or bad he is, he sucks right now. When grossman thew an interception off his back foot people went nuts, when Cutler does it,boy do the excusses come out. He arrived here as a savior and was praised, but has not turned out to expectations, so stop making excusses.

[madlithuanian]

To play a moderate amount of Devil's Advocate...

 

I don't recall Cutler doing those things in Denver. I don't recall hiom throwing off his back foot. Yet, all of a sudden, when given Chicago's tour de force of coaches, he regresses and starts similar things to what Rex did. Seriously, is the staff teaching that? I'm sure they're not...but dang. Something is not right with this staff.

 

Just giving it an eyeball test... Orton is doing better than expected, and Cutler is doing worse than expected. That simple test says that something is wrong in Chicago. We know there's more to it, like Denver becomeing solid on D, having a better OL, having MUCH better WR's...etc. But, I think it also infers inpetness in preparation.

 

If I'm wrong, and Cutler was prone to throwing off the back foot in Denver, please let me know. I just didn't watch much of Cutler last year.

 

Bingo to perfection!! Thats what I am trying to get accross. I want Cutler to have success, but I am not going to lie to myself and others about how good or bad he is, he sucks right now. When grossman thew an interception off his back foot people went nuts, when Cutler does it,boy do the excusses come out. He arrived here as a savior and was praised, but has not turned out to expectations, so stop making excusses.

 

[jason]

***This year the Bears have .268 first downs per play. Last year the Bears had .282 first downs per play. ***

***Last year the Bears had .0.380 points per play. This year its down to .318 points per play.***

Interesting stat

Ok now that we have the boring stats out of the way.

 

The Bears had more first downs per play last year, mildly which kicks out the notion that Orton's offenses stalled more then the offense this year. I couldn't find a 3 and out stat, but i think first down per play may be even more significant.

First downs per play is misleading because the percentage would be higher if you had less offensive snaps. Not to mention the fact that a team is likely to get more first downs when they're an overall better team like they were last year.

 

They scored a significant more points per play than last year. Cutlers threat of scoring is just that, a threat. He's not any more lethal this year than last years offense of the Bears.

Again, this is simple math. Less plays makes the points per play more likely. If the Bears get field position at the 50, take five plays and get a FG on the sixth play, it's 1 pt per play. But if they get the ball on their own 20, go 10 plays, and get to the opponent's 35 before missing a long FG, it's 0 per play. But I think we can all agree that the latter of the two drives was a more effective drive, but the previous just had the advantage of starting further downfield. That's similar to a Princeton grad bragging about his Ivy League degree despite the fact that both of his parents teach there and his grandfather donated the field for the football team. It's easier to score when you start on second base.

 

INT's just kill a team. They are not better than 3 and outs even if the team had more last year. They are momentum shifters. They give the other team better field position, and in Cutler's red zone issues, it takes points off the board.

After thinking about this, I think we're both right. Looking at the team last year, the 3 and outs killed them more than any INT. It happened so often that you could see the Defense say, "Not again!" This year, they may be doing that with the INTs. But I can tell you that the defense definitely appreciates an offense that at least attempts to score, as opposed to one that simply holds onto the ball for a little while. The point of the offense is to score, not to give the defense a break.

 

I understand people love Cutler, and I really hope he has a bright future. I just don't see why people have to make up things like the 3 and outs. Why they have to lie to themselves and say Orton is/was mediocre to make them feel better about Cutler as someone said earlier. Or why people have to justify everything that Cutler does by placing the blame on other Bears or degrading old Bears.

 

-Cutler is playing like crap this year. Agreed, but the INTs aren't all on him

-The offense was actually better last year. Overall, I agree. But that has less to do with QB play, and more to do with OL play and the running game. Both were far superior last year. And, the scoring may be better, but that doesn't make the offense better. Starting on 2nd base helps a lot.

-Orton lead a better offense last year. Overall, again, this is difficult to debate because of the running game last year. But I don't think it's so much because of Orton; it's more to do with the total team effort.

 

Those are just facts. Cutler has potential to make this offense great one day. He and the rest of the offense are just crap today.

 

Unlike the OP of the comment to which I responded, I don't think your post is perfection.

 

Here's what the post said:

Please people know the facts. Kyle has a winning record every year he has played in the NFL (ain't that interesting). Cutler has a loosing record in the NFL. Kyle Orton will never throw as many ints as Cutler. But you can post the defenseive yards stats, but you do not like the interceptions AND records stats? Well guess whats more important than def. yard stats, I'll tell you, the int. and win stats. What do they say "the team with the most turnovers usually looses, but NEVER do they say the team with the least yards looses. I live here in Colorado Cutler LEADS the nfl in ints.

 

Let's break that down.

 

Kyle has a winning record every year he has played in the NFL (ain't that interesting).

2005: In Orton's rookie year, the Bears went 11-5. Orton played in 15 games. In no game did he throw for more than 250 yards. He threw for 2 TDs only once. This year was all about Defense, and anyone who says otherwise is completely blind or never watched the games that year.

2006: The Grossman year...which, coincidentally, the Bears were pretty decent despite Rex throwing 20 INTs. Oh, and surprise, surprise...the Bears had a good/great defense, and a great special teams.

2007: Congrats, he compiled 470+ yards in three games, and the Bears went 2-1. Yes, those two wins are clearly because of Orton.

2008: The Bears went 9-7, Kyle started 15 games (going 9-6), and actually probably had his best year. He even went over 300 yards once. Once.

2009: The Broncos are currently 8-5 with Orton at QB, and they had a lucky horseshoe in their pocket for the first part of the season. Their Defense gave up less than 10 ppg over the first five games...all wins.

 

The notion that QBs are tied to winning records is ridiculous. This is a team game.

 

Culter has a losing record in the NFL

2006: 2-3. 9 TDs, 5 INTs. His defense gave up 140 points in those five games. That's 28 points per game. Tough to win with that defense.

2007: 7-9. 20TDs, 14 INTs. His defense gave up nearly 26 points per game. Tough to win with that defense.

2008: 8-8. 25TDs, 18 INTs. His defense gave up 28 points per game, again. Tough to win with that defense.

2009: 5-8. No QB would have a winning record with this putrid OL, this inexperienced set of receivers, and this braindead coaching staff. For that matter, it would be very difficult for a QB to have decent stats with the same three aforementioned hindrances.

 

The notion that "Cutler's winning percentage" is less than .500 because of his efforts is ridiculous. This is a team game.

 

BTW - The Broncos in 2009 started off with the best defense in the league, and got most of their wins. Suddenly, the defense isn't as good, and the wins aren't happening as frequently. Hmmmm...

 

Kyle Orton will never throw as many ints as Cutler.

This is probably true, but I don't know if this is a positive or a negative. I suppose it depends on preference. I'd rather take a shot and miss every once in a while than never take a shot at all. Sure, you could do the latter and do fairly well in life, but you'll never really know what could be if everything clicks and you kick ass. So, for Lovie Smith, Orton is the perfect QB, both play it so safe that they don't just look twice before crossing the street, they look 28 times and then sprint across.

 

But you can post the defenseive yards stats, but you do not like the interceptions AND records stats? Well guess whats more important than def. yard stats, I'll tell you, the int. and win stats.

Yes! If the Defense and ST have more to do with the wins than the offense and the QB, then you surely can. Look at the entire game, and not JUST the stats, and it's pretty obvious. Your argument is essentially saying something akin to, "Well, Marino doesn't have any Super Bowl rings! So he's not as good as Trent Dilfer! Wins matter most, and in the biggest games - the playoffs - only Dilfer made it all the way to the Super Bowl and won." We both know that point of view is ridiculous, and I can give you tons more examples when the wins and losses don't dictate the talent, skills, or effort of a singular player.

 

What do they say "the team with the most turnovers usually looses [sic], but NEVER do they say the team with the least yards looses.

They do say that. And it's normally true. But there are two issues I have with that in regards to the Lovie Smith Bears. One, turnovers matter a lot less when your offense is capable of putting up big points. Of course, turnovers matter a lot more when the offense and QB have difficulty breaking 20. Similarly, when you defense is outstanding, and getting a lot of turnovers, your offensive turnovers matter a lot less.

 

I live here in Colorado Cutler LEADS the nfl in ints.

Hope the snow is good...and yes, Cutler does lead the NFL in INTs...but as I've mentioned during and after each game, one could easily take away about 10 of those INTs and place blame on numerous things (i.e. OC, OL, WR, Umpire, DPI not called) without stretching too much.

[defiantgiant]

Jason, you said it way better than I did: you can't compare Cutler's track record to Orton's. Orton had 15 starts with a top-5 defense...Cutler didn't even have 15 starts where the Broncos' D held the other team to three touchdowns. And if you want to talk about wins, NSP2, when they did hold a team to 21 points, he was like 13-1.

 

Like Jason said: it's like comparing Dilfer to Marino. Dilfer went 7-1 as a starter with Baltimore in 2000. He threw nearly as many picks (11) as TDs (12) and averaged under 200 yards passing per game, with a sub-60% completion percentage and a sub-80 QB rating. When he went to the Seahawks and the Browns, which stat did he take with him? Was it wins? Nope. It was all the other ones: the low yardage, low completion percentage, poor QB rating, and the nearly even TD-Int ratio. So what's the difference between the 2000 Ravens and the Seahawks and the Browns? Defense: the 2000 Ravens were the first (and only) team to have a stingier defense than the 1985 Bears. Baltimore's all-time-best defense and running game got those wins in spite of Dilfer being a mediocre quarterback, which makes it kind of hard to say that those wins are Dilfer's stats.

 

A better comparison might be Dilfer to Carson Palmer. I think it's pretty widely recognized that Palmer is a very good QB: he's in the tier of near-elite QBs right below the elite guys like Manning, Brady, etc. His win-loss record? Not that great, because the Bengals had a crappy defense until the middle of last season, and they had no running game after Rudi Johnson. As soon as their defense and run game got better, the team was winning games with Palmer; now they've swept their division and are going to the playoffs.

 

It just doesn't make sense to talk about a quarterback's win-loss record unless you put it in context of the rest of the team. Which means looking at defense, running, and special teams. Which means that there's no comparison between Orton and Cutler: Cutler left the Broncos just in time for their defense to get really good and the Bears' defense to completely fall apart. Orton did the opposite: he started one season with an elite Bears defense, one with a mediocre one, and now he's starting for a Broncos team that all of a sudden has a nasty D. He's getting a ton of help from the team around him that Cutler's never gotten in his career. Going all the way back to college, Cutler's always had a lousy defense: there's honestly no telling how good he could be on a complete team.

[madlithuanian]

Just curious, as I've been following the thread...what is your ultimate point?

 

Is it that Orton is a better QB than Cutler?

 

 

 

 

[defiantgiant]

Just curious, as I've been following the thread...what is your ultimate point?

 

Is it that Orton is a better QB than Cutler?

Mine? It's the opposite, that Cutler's a more talented quarterback and would be playing better than Orton if he had a comparably talented team around him. I actually kind of like Billick's analysis of Cutler (except for the part where he compares him to Jeff George) that they posted on ESPN:

“I was a huge Jay Cutler fan, and I’m not ready to bail on him yet. But I’m going to make an analogy here that’s going to scare a lot of people. He’s beginning to feel Jeff Georgish. Tremendous talent. The two interceptions, two touchdowns in the game [sunday]. The interceptions, you just scratch your head and say, ‘Where exactly were you going with this ball?’ And then the two touchdown throws … there is probably not four guys in this league that could make the kind of throws that he made to get those two touchdowns. So it’s a head-scratcher. Obviously huge, huge potential. But right now, it’s only potential I think.”

 

I think that last bit is a pretty good summation of how I feel about Cutler: he's still mostly unfulfilled potential, and the crappy teams he's played on haven't exactly helped him to fulfill it. He needs to step up, but he's also never had a complete team around him, even going back to college - he's always had a substandard supporting cast on offense, a poor defense, or both. Even when he was lighting it up in Denver, he was always playing from behind thanks to their defense, so he had to throw it a ton and attempt a lot of risky passes. It's obvious that he's tremendously talented, and there's no way to know how good he could be if he were on a solid all-around team. Angelo clearly thought this team was a quarterback away from the postseason, but it just isn't: until we have an offensive line and a competent defense, I don't think we're going to know whether Cutler can live up to his potential.

[madlithuanian]

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

 

Mine? It's the opposite, that Cutler's a more talented quarterback and would be playing better than Orton if he had a comparably talented team around him. I actually kind of like Billick's analysis of Cutler (except for the part where he compares him to Jeff George) that they posted on ESPN:

 

 

I think that last bit is a pretty good summation of how I feel about Cutler: he's still mostly unfulfilled potential, and the crappy teams he's played on haven't exactly helped him to fulfill it. He needs to step up, but he's also never had a complete team around him, even going back to college - he's always had a substandard supporting cast on offense, a poor defense, or both. Even when he was lighting it up in Denver, he was always playing from behind thanks to their defense, so he had to throw it a ton and attempt a lot of risky passes. It's obvious that he's tremendously talented, and there's no way to know how good he could be if he were on a solid all-around team. Angelo clearly thought this team was a quarterback away from the postseason, but it just isn't: until we have an offensive line and a competent defense, I don't think we're going to know whether Cutler can live up to his potential.

 

[jason]

Just curious, as I've been following the thread...what is your ultimate point?

 

Is it that Orton is a better QB than Cutler?

 

I definitely don't think that. Cutler > Orton. However, the win percentages often attributed to QBs is misleading in this regards because Orton has had pretty good supporting casts (i.e. D, ST), and Cutler has not. It just so happens that they switched teams when the rise on one team and the decline of another became apparent.

 

I actually liked Orton on the Bears, but there is no comparing Cutler and Orton.