Jaws on Cutler...

[Mongo3451]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/jensen/2042...sean11.article#

 

This is why he doesn't win. I think he will grow out of it. Hopefully Martz will accellerate the curve.

[adam]

Jaws is probably a good player to analyze INTs, since he threw a ton of them. The only problem on some of these was that it was clear that the receiver ran the wrong route or stopped short. Those INTs looked really bad, but it is hard to blame Cutler when he is throwing to a point. Jaws does also say that about 6-8 weren't Cutler's fault, so that is about right.

 

I do think Martz will help and they have a lot more time to prepare than last year.

[nfoligno]

One thing I noticed from Jaws review was how often he questioned the route or play call given a particular situation. He seems to knock Cutler for not realizing it is a bad call, or trying to make the play rather than just throw it away, but if the QB just throws it away everytime the OC makes a questionable playcall, he is really in the right?

 

Another thing I have issue w/ is Jaws saying NONE of the ints happened when Cutler was pressured, which flat out goes against what I know I saw.

 

At the end of the day, I think the high number of interceptions was due to numerous reason. There is simply no question Cutler's decision making was part of it. To me though, there were other reasons, from a WR simply falling down, to running the wrong route. Playcalling was an issue, as was OL protection. No question Cutler should, and has, been questioned, but at the same time, there is simply no question in my mind that other factors were involved.

 

I would also like to add one more thing. During a game, Jaws stated that after review, 22 of the 26 picks were solely on Cutler, but in reading his pick by pick analysis, he seems to give Cutler a pass on considerably more than just 4 picks. That right there puts into question his previous comments.

 

Jaws is probably a good player to analyze INTs, since he threw a ton of them. The only problem on some of these was that it was clear that the receiver ran the wrong route or stopped short. Those INTs looked really bad, but it is hard to blame Cutler when he is throwing to a point. Jaws does also say that about 6-8 weren't Cutler's fault, so that is about right.

 

I do think Martz will help and they have a lot more time to prepare than last year.

 

[madlithuanian]

Ever since he shaved his 'stache, I haven't trusted him.

 

One thing I noticed from Jaws review was how often he questioned the route or play call given a particular situation. He seems to knock Cutler for not realizing it is a bad call, or trying to make the play rather than just throw it away, but if the QB just throws it away everytime the OC makes a questionable playcall, he is really in the right?

 

Another thing I have issue w/ is Jaws saying NONE of the ints happened when Cutler was pressured, which flat out goes against what I know I saw.

 

At the end of the day, I think the high number of interceptions was due to numerous reason. There is simply no question Cutler's decision making was part of it. To me though, there were other reasons, from a WR simply falling down, to running the wrong route. Playcalling was an issue, as was OL protection. No question Cutler should, and has, been questioned, but at the same time, there is simply no question in my mind that other factors were involved.

 

I would also like to add one more thing. During a game, Jaws stated that after review, 22 of the 26 picks were solely on Cutler, but in reading his pick by pick analysis, he seems to give Cutler a pass on considerably more than just 4 picks. That right there puts into question his previous comments.

 

[adam]

I would also like to add one more thing. During a game, Jaws stated that after review, 22 of the 26 picks were solely on Cutler, but in reading his pick by pick analysis, he seems to give Cutler a pass on considerably more than just 4 picks. That right there puts into question his previous comments.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

[defiantgiant]

I would also like to add one more thing. During a game, Jaws stated that after review, 22 of the 26 picks were solely on Cutler, but in reading his pick by pick analysis, he seems to give Cutler a pass on considerably more than just 4 picks. That right there puts into question his previous comments.

Yeah, by my count, he gave Cutler a pass on 8 of the interceptions when he actually broke them all down: those were ones where either a receiver messed up, a defensive player made a ridiculous play, or the game situation was such that Cutler had to take a shot. And 18 interceptions is about what I'd expect from Cutler, even in a good season. Does he need to get that number down? Of course he does. But Cutler didn't regress this season as much as the numbers make him out to have done. He was playing roughly the same as he did in Denver, just without the stellar pass protection and a big receiver to bail him out (until DA stepped in.) Also, I think it's worth noting that in the last four games, he had better protection (with Williams on the left side) and a big receiver. In those four, he threw for this stat line:

 

75/134 (56%) for 852 yards, 10 TDs, 6 interceptions, 81.4 QB rating

 

Not a stellar stat line, but an improvement, and he did it while all the new personnel were still getting settled. After he has a whole offseason to get comfortable with Aromashodu and the new line, I think he could live up to expectations next season.

[Mongo3451]

Yeah, by my count, he gave Cutler a pass on 8 of the interceptions when he actually broke them all down: those were ones where either a receiver messed up, a defensive player made a ridiculous play, or the game situation was such that Cutler had to take a shot. And 18 interceptions is about what I'd expect from Cutler, even in a good season. Does he need to get that number down? Of course he does. But Cutler didn't regress this season as much as the numbers make him out to have done. He was playing roughly the same as he did in Denver, just without the stellar pass protection and a big receiver to bail him out (until DA stepped in.) Also, I think it's worth noting that in the last four games, he had better protection (with Williams on the left side) and a big receiver. In those four, he threw for this stat line:

 

75/134 (56%) for 852 yards, 10 TDs, 6 interceptions, 81.4 QB rating

 

Not a stellar stat line, but an improvement, and he did it while all the new personnel were still getting settled. After he has a whole offseason to get comfortable with Aromashodu and the new line, I think he could live up to expectations next season.

Not picking you out of the crowd on this but it seems like a lot of posters make excuses for Cutler. His total of 18 that were his fault is still obscene if you look at all QB's, let alone the top 10. If we had the ability to take away INT's from all QB's their numbers would continue to separate them from Cutler.

 

Also, I don't find the above stat line impressive. (It's still a 24 int pace and a .500 record) Still tops in the league and we don't make the playoffs.

[nfoligno]

Honestly, there are very few posters who totally excuse Cutler for the picks. Simply put, Cutler made some really bad decisions. He has always been the sort to take risks. Add in a situation where he has been declared the savior, and he liked pressed himself more than he should have. That is NOT an excuse, but simply a reason.

 

Here is the thing though. While there were too many picks as a whole, too often the common thought is to simply place all the fault at the QB. Jaws, during a game, even stated that all but 4 picks were 100% on Cutler, but now that number has doubled, and IMHO, even still the number is questionable.

 

Cutler was working w/ young WRs who he didn't have chemistry with. He was working behind an awful OL. He was working in a system run by an OC few think much of. In fact, even Jaws often questioned the playcall. Jaws put the fault at Cutler for not just throwing it away, but should the OC not be questioned for the playcall too?

 

Again, I don't think anyone would say Cutler didn't make mistakes. In fact, he made many. The point is that if you just look at the stat line, that 26 picks screams, but while not absolving him of blame, the point it to show not all the picks were on him. That's all.

 

Not picking you out of the crowd on this but it seems like a lot of posters make excuses for Cutler. His total of 18 that were his fault is still obscene if you look at all QB's, let alone the top 10. If we had the ability to take away INT's from all QB's their numbers would continue to separate them from Cutler.

 

Also, I don't find the above stat line impressive. (It's still a 24 int pace and a .500 record) Still tops in the league and we don't make the playoffs.

 

[defiantgiant]

Not picking you out of the crowd on this but it seems like a lot of posters make excuses for Cutler. His total of 18 that were his fault is still obscene if you look at all QB's, let alone the top 10. If we had the ability to take away INT's from all QB's their numbers would continue to separate them from Cutler.

 

Also, I don't find the above stat line impressive. (It's still a 24 int pace and a .500 record) Still tops in the league and we don't make the playoffs.

It's also a 40-TD pace, which would have made Cutler the #1 scoring QB in the league. And I've said this before, but win record is not an individual stat. It just isn't. Go to nfl.com and pull up the career stats for any quarterback: they don't list wins/losses among their stats. Extrapolating the team's record like it's Cutler's stat just doesn't make sense: you really think the team would have gone 8-8 if Cutler put up 240 points for the offense?

 

Also, 18 interceptions is too many, but I'd hardly call it "obscene." In fact, it wouldn't have been THAT out of place among the best QBs in the league. Peyton Manning got picked 16 times this season. Is that obscene? Kurt Warner and Eli Manning had 14 picks each; Tom Brady and Carson Palmer had 13 apiece. In my post I specifically said that Cutler needs to get the interceptions down. But he's always going to throw more than somebody like Kyle Orton. That's what kind of player he is. If Chicago wanted somebody who wasn't ever going to take risks, they would have kept Orton.

[Mongo3451]

It's also a 40-TD pace, which would have made Cutler the #1 scoring QB in the league. And I've said this before, but win record is not an individual stat. It just isn't. Go to nfl.com and pull up the career stats for any quarterback: they don't list wins/losses among their stats. Extrapolating the team's record like it's Cutler's stat just doesn't make sense: you really think the team would have gone 8-8 if Cutler put up 240 points for the offense?

 

Also, 18 interceptions is too many, but I'd hardly call it "obscene." In fact, it wouldn't have been THAT out of place among the best QBs in the league. Peyton Manning got picked 16 times this season. Is that obscene? Kurt Warner and Eli Manning had 14 picks each; Tom Brady and Carson Palmer had 13 apiece. In my post I specifically said that Cutler needs to get the interceptions down. But he's always going to throw more than somebody like Kyle Orton. That's what kind of player he is. If Chicago wanted somebody who wasn't ever going to take risks, they would have kept Orton.

The key I wanted everyone to take from this is if we looked at all QB's and took away the INT's that weren't their fault... The 18 that were Cut's fault are indeed obscene. Sorry as well, but QB's are judged on wins and losses. It's not an official NFL stat, but doesn't have to be. Some are just winners and then there are the guys that are on the cusp and some just won't ever get it. I think Cutler is on the cusp, but he has some maturing to do.

[jason]

OMG!!! Where is azbearsfan!? Not in this thread??? WHAT A SURPRISE!!!

 

I told you when Jaws said during a national telecast that he was talking out of his ass, but noooooooooo. What do I know?

http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...ost&p=74733

 

Oh, what is that? I said that Cutler couldn't be blamed for about 8-10 of the INTs. And lo and behold, what does Jaws do when he finally writes an article to make up for his foot-in-mouth move on national TV? Oh, that's right, he basically gives Cutler a pass on about 8 of the INTs.

 

Seriously, it's time to realize that there is a lot of intelligence, passion, devotion, and analyzing power in the hardcore fan. Most average fans don't spend time posing on the internet, and that's why there's a difference. I was right - and there really was no doubt about it - and I hope the the crow is enjoyed.

 

As for the INTs, it's still too many. But if the WRs were completely F'ing up for a good portion of the season, it may have been lower. And with those lower numbers, it's highly likely that Cutler would have put a few more TDs on the board. Statistics change drastically based upon previous results, and I expect a lot more (more TDs, less INTs) from Cutler in the Martz offense.

 

[defiantgiant]

The key I wanted everyone to take from this is if we looked at all QB's and took away the INT's that weren't their fault... The 18 that were Cut's fault are indeed obscene.

Show me how many interceptions weren't Peyton Manning's fault. We don't know how many were or weren't. My guess, though, is that the Colts' receivers screwed up a lot less than the Bears' did. Doesn't seem like a stretch to think that Reggie Wayne wasn't falling down trying to stem off a route or running into the back judge on a square-in. And Peyton had an offensive line that didn't have him running for his life every down. For all we know, every single one of Manning's interceptions was his fault. Regardless, you're assuming that the proportion of interceptions attributable to other players than the QB is a constant across different teams with different levels of experience and skill at the other positions, which is a pretty tough assumption to swallow.

 

Sorry as well, but QB's are judged on wins and losses. It's not an official NFL stat, but doesn't have to be. Some are just winners and then there are the guys that are on the cusp and some just won't ever get it. I think Cutler is on the cusp, but he has some maturing to do.

It's true, QBs are judged by wins and losses. It's not true, however, that they're FAIRLY or RATIONALLY judged on wins and losses. Why should they be, when no other position is? Is it because of their responsibilities for the offense? Brian Urlacher's the quarterback of our defense, for all intents and purposes. All the calls go through him, he gets everybody lined up, he makes sure guys are doing their jobs. Does anyone even know Urlacher's win-loss record? No, because nobody in their right mind would think that the team's wins and losses are on him alone. What makes quarterbacks different, other than this superstition that they can magically influence a team to win regardless of how well they play? Did Trent Dilfer somehow become a "winner" once he got to Baltimore? No, he was the same mediocre QB, only with a once-in-a-decade defense and a heavy-duty running game.

 

That's the thing...whenever anyone tries to fall back on this "wins are a stat" argument, they resort to superstition like "some guys are just winners." Tell me about just being a winner. Can you coach it? Are people born with it? Are there winning drills that some QBs ran in Pop Warner practice, while other QBs ran those stupid losing drills? Or is there a more rational explanation like, say, winning being a matter of how good your entire team is versus how good opposing teams are? I'd say it's the latter, especially when you consider guys like Urlacher and Mike Brown, who were drafted in the same year, and both started as rookies. Aren't they equally "winning" players because they played for the same team and therefore have the same win-loss record? If so, then that's true of anybody who happens to start for that team at the same time, which sure makes it seem like wins are a team stat. If not, then you have argue that you can't judge a winner based on how much he wins, which is ridiculous.

[Mongo3451]

It's true, QBs are judged by wins and losses. It's not true, however, that they're FAIRLY or RATIONALLY judged on wins and losses. Why should they be, when no other position is? Is it because of their responsibilities for the offense? Brian Urlacher's the quarterback of our defense, for all intents and purposes. All the calls go through him, he gets everybody lined up, he makes sure guys are doing their jobs. Does anyone even know Urlacher's win-loss record? No, because nobody in their right mind would think that the team's wins and losses are on him alone. What makes quarterbacks different, other than this superstition that they can magically influence a team to win regardless of how well they play? Did Trent Dilfer somehow become a "winner" once he got to Baltimore? No, he was the same mediocre QB, only with a once-in-a-decade defense and a heavy-duty running game.

 

That's the thing...whenever anyone tries to fall back on this "wins are a stat" argument, they resort to superstition like "some guys are just winners." Tell me about just being a winner. Can you coach it? Are people born with it? Are there winning drills that some QBs ran in Pop Warner practice, while other QBs ran those stupid losing drills? Or is there a more rational explanation like, say, winning being a matter of how good your entire team is versus how good opposing teams are? I'd say it's the latter, especially when you consider guys like Urlacher and Mike Brown, who were drafted in the same year, and both started as rookies. Aren't they equally "winning" players because they played for the same team and therefore have the same win-loss record? If so, then that's true of anybody who happens to start for that team at the same time, which sure makes it seem like wins are a team stat. If not, then you have argue that you can't judge a winner based on how much he wins, which is ridiculous.

I don't know where to begin and don't have much time. So, this may come in other posts. Winning QB's simply get it done. Not by STATS, but by leading/willing/inspiring his team to victory. They possess the unique ability to make their teammates believe on a higher level. Yes, they've learned it, and practice it, and inherited it from watching their fathers daily walk with life, and yes, most all, they are born with IT! If you have ever played at any competetive level you would understand this. To stand in a huddle with a true leader is something special and they do really make everyone better.

 

[BearFan PHX]

That's the thing...whenever anyone tries to fall back on this "wins are a stat" argument, they resort to superstition like "some guys are just winners." Tell me about just being a winner. Can you coach it? Are people born with it?

 

I agree that it is possible for a mediocre Quarterback to be part of a winning team. Football is the ultimate team sport, every system interlocks. You cannot use Wins and Losses blindly to rate any player. Walter Payton, for example, was a winner, despite a lot of losses - and I agree that Trent Dilfer is not the walking definition of Quarterback dominance.

 

BUT Winners ARE what make the difference between winning and losing on a team - I suspect you still agree with me so far. Baltimore had a LOT of leadership from other positions that year. They had Winners, just not necessarily one at QB.

 

So if your only point is that a Winner at QB isn't completely 100% necessary, then I agree. There was that specific exception, and there have been a few others, maybe not as glaring as Baltimore 2000, but there have been others.

 

But given that you DO need leadership and Winners on a team, can't you see why QB is a natural position in which to have one? There's no other position that naturally affects the game as much as QB play. He touches the ball on every (non-wildcat) offensive play. If you look at winning teams, they almost always have a Winner at QB.

 

OK, so what makes a Winner? For me it's a few things.

 

For one, it's desire. In the NFL, the talent level is all really good. I think that a few super-dominant players aside, desire is one of the areas where there exists the largest gap between those with and those without. In the NFL, speed kills, but the margins between the fastest and the veteran are closer than the difference in desire. Any given Sunday and all that? A Winner wants it more than you do. We see desire play out on a football field all the time, it's the compelling story of competition. You might say that your Baltimore example is one of Ray Lewis having SO much desire that he overcame his role & position to disproportionately affect the game. Ray Lewis is definitely a Winner.

 

Secondly, a Winner can focus. A Winner's stats in key situations are higher than his average stats. He's the kind of guy who can focus when it's really needed and push himself to another level. Think of Michael Jordan, who could will a victory. Again, someone's gotta CATCH the ball, and give the QB protection, but the QB has to do it right when it counts too. This is probably 1b, since it's so related to desire so closely.

 

Thirdly, I'd look to leadership. This is a quality of being able to inspire the people around you to play better, to believe that they can accomplish what they need to. This is in turn related to the second quality, because it's a kind of ability to inspire others to be focus and perform better when it counts too. A leader makes the people around him into Winners. This goes back to your team point earlier too. It's a team game, but a leader's effects resonate throughout the team.

 

Desire, Focus and Leadership pay dividends on practice days too, individually and for the team.

 

So yeah, there are exceptions, and any football stat needs to be understood in context, but there ARE such things as Winners, and QB is a really good place to have one.

 

You could say that:

 

1) In general, a Winner at QB is an important ingredient on a Super Bowl winning team.

 

2) While no stat is 100% predictive, and all stats need to be understood in context, that Wins and Losses are usually a damned good predictor of a Quarterback's abilities.

[nfoligno]

IMHO, the question is not whether or not you need a "winner" at QB, but whether or not it is right to claim Cutler isn't a "winner".

 

The dude went to freaking Vandy. Vandy is in one of the toughest college conferences, and not a school that often ends up with a winning record. What did they have this past year, 2 wins? I love what John Lynch said,

 

"If this guy can take a bunch of future doctors and lawyers and have them competing against the Florida Gators, this guy is a stud."

 

You want a winner. In his last game at Vandy, he beat Tenn (at Tenn) which was the first time Vandy had one since 1982.

 

As a pro, before writing him off, take a bit of a closer look. He only was in Denver for 3 seasons, the first of which he only started the final 5 games of the year. No, he didn't have a winning record in Denver, but how much was on him and how much was an an awful defense which was a total joke. He had solid numbers, always improving, in his 3 years in Denver, but that defense was simply so bad. His final season in Denver, they had the #2 offense, and the 29th ranked defense. Was he supposed to play defense too.

 

So he had one season in Chicago. He had no OL, no run game, young and inexperienced WRs and an OC who did so poorly he was fired. I would say many "winners" would have struggled in such a situation.

 

So the issue I have is the belief that (a) Cutler isn't a winner and ( you can look at any player, even a QB, in such a box as to not consider other areas. I think you would agree Payton Manning is a winner. Well, if he were the QB for Vandy, do you believe Vandy would have been a leader in the SEC? Would Manning in Denver have been so much better than Cutler that their defense would have suddenly played well? Even in Chicago this past year, I think Manning would have struggled.

 

You can have a "winner" but if he is in a losing situation, I question how much you can put that on him.

 

 

I agree that it is possible for a mediocre Quarterback to be part of a winning team. Football is the ultimate team sport, every system interlocks. You cannot use Wins and Losses blindly to rate any player. Walter Payton, for example, was a winner, despite a lot of losses - and I agree that Trent Dilfer is not the walking definition of Quarterback dominance.

 

BUT Winners ARE what make the difference between winning and losing on a team - I suspect you still agree with me so far. Baltimore had a LOT of leadership from other positions that year. They had Winners, just not necessarily one at QB.

 

So if your only point is that a Winner at QB isn't completely 100% necessary, then I agree. There was that specific exception, and there have been a few others, maybe not as glaring as Baltimore 2000, but there have been others.

 

But given that you DO need leadership and Winners on a team, can't you see why QB is a natural position in which to have one? There's no other position that naturally affects the game as much as QB play. He touches the ball on every (non-wildcat) offensive play. If you look at winning teams, they almost always have a Winner at QB.

 

OK, so what makes a Winner? For me it's a few things.

 

For one, it's desire. In the NFL, the talent level is all really good. I think that a few super-dominant players aside, desire is one of the areas where there exists the largest gap between those with and those without. In the NFL, speed kills, but the margins between the fastest and the veteran are closer than the difference in desire. Any given Sunday and all that? A Winner wants it more than you do. We see desire play out on a football field all the time, it's the compelling story of competition. You might say that your Baltimore example is one of Ray Lewis having SO much desire that he overcame his role & position to disproportionately affect the game. Ray Lewis is definitely a Winner.

 

Secondly, a Winner can focus. A Winner's stats in key situations are higher than his average stats. He's the kind of guy who can focus when it's really needed and push himself to another level. Think of Michael Jordan, who could will a victory. Again, someone's gotta CATCH the ball, and give the QB protection, but the QB has to do it right when it counts too. This is probably 1b, since it's so related to desire so closely.

 

Thirdly, I'd look to leadership. This is a quality of being able to inspire the people around you to play better, to believe that they can accomplish what they need to. This is in turn related to the second quality, because it's a kind of ability to inspire others to be focus and perform better when it counts too. A leader makes the people around him into Winners. This goes back to your team point earlier too. It's a team game, but a leader's effects resonate throughout the team.

 

Desire, Focus and Leadership pay dividends on practice days too, individually and for the team.

 

So yeah, there are exceptions, and any football stat needs to be understood in context, but there ARE such things as Winners, and QB is a really good place to have one.

 

You could say that:

 

1) In general, a Winner at QB is an important ingredient on a Super Bowl winning team.

 

2) While no stat is 100% predictive, and all stats need to be understood in context, that Wins and Losses are usually a damned good predictor of a Quarterback's abilities.

 

[defiantgiant]

I don't know where to begin and don't have much time. So, this may come in other posts. Winning QB's simply get it done. Not by STATS, but by leading/willing/inspiring his team to victory. They possess the unique ability to make their teammates believe on a higher level.

OK, I agree that you need leaders on any professional sports team. But if when you say "winner" you mean "leader," then just say "leader." People who use "winner" to mean "leader" are conflating a real quality (a player who can inspire/lead his teammates to play better) with an imaginary quality (a player who has a winning record just by willing it to happen or some other magical process.)

 

Like the other guys here have been saying, you don't necessarily measure a leader by how often he wins, especially if (like Cutler) he's been put in a bunch of lousy situations. Some good leaders lose. Look at Peyton Manning after Indianapolis lost to the Saints - I bet his teammates would still tell you he's a good leader. That's because leading and winning aren't always the same thing.

 

And you don't necessarily need the quarterback to be your leader, either, but that's the only position where people talk about "winners" or "just getting it done." By all accounts, Kreutz was the leader on offense when the Bears went to the Super Bowl. He provided the nasty, smashmouth, blue-collar attitude that defined that offense, especially in the run game. He made the guys around him, most of whom only had a couple of years left in their careers, play at an extremely high level. He set the tone for that team.

 

But that's being a leader, not a winner. Because the next season Kreutz went 7-9, just like everybody else on the Bears, and I don't think anybody here would say he was less of a leader in 2007 than he was in 2006. Would you say he became less of a "winner" that year, in the sense you're using the word, where a winner is a player who "leads/wills/inspires his team to victory"? If not, then we're talking about the same thing: a leader. Just take out the "to victory" part of that sentence, and I'm on board with you 100%. I'm willing to bet that everybody on that Bears line would tell you that Kreutz was the same leader during their 7-9 season that he was in their 13-3 season, but leadership doesn't always equal victories.

 

To sum all that stuff up: my beef with the "winner" myth is that it's a superstition, and it's used to justify the assumption that quarterbacks with losing records are bad leaders. A lot of commentators look at a guy like Cutler and say "oh, he's not a winner." And what they really mean to imply is that he's a bad leader or a bad competitor. But they don't back that up by talking to his teammates (who say he's a great leader) or talking to his coaches (who say he's extremely competitive.) They back it up by pointing to his team's win/loss record, which is just wrong. When people say "Cutler's never been a winner, even in college" they're saying he's a lousy leader or he's uncompetitive because his teams lost. But like nfoligno said, the guy doesn't play defense, and his defenses have always been putrid. He could have been General Patton...he still wouldn't have been able to lead Vanderbilt to victory in the SEC, not with that defense. Same goes for the Broncos, and (like it or not) for the Bears this season. The best leaders in football still need a team around them to have a winning season.

[Mongo3451]

name='defiantgiant' date='Feb 16 2010, 05:54 PM' post='77857']

OK, I agree that you need leaders on any professional sports team. But if when you say "winner" you mean "leader," then just say "leader." People who use "winner" to mean "leader" are conflating a real quality (a player who can inspire/lead his teammates to play better) with an imaginary quality (a player who has a winning record just by willing it to happen or some other magical process.)

There is distinct difference between leaders and winners, so please don't lecture me on my choice of words. Before you read to far into my next statement; go into it with knowing that I think Cutler is on the cusp of being a winner and a leader. Leaders are people who find a way to be followed. Winners are people who find a way to get things done. Throwing red-zone interceptions is not a winning way. Making a 4th quarter drive to win the game or ice it for the D is a winning way. 28 INT's, not... Some guys just have that ability to find a way to win. It's not made up. It's time tested.

 

Like the other guys here have been saying, you don't necessarily measure a leader by how often he wins, especially if (like Cutler) he's been put in a bunch of lousy situations. Some good leaders lose. Look at Peyton Manning after Indianapolis lost to the Saints - I bet his teammates would still tell you he's a good leader. That's because leading and winning aren't always the same thing.

 

And you don't necessarily need the quarterback to be your leader, either, but that's the only position where people talk about "winners" or "just getting it done." By all accounts, Kreutz was the leader on offense when the Bears went to the Super Bowl. He provided the nasty, smashmouth, blue-collar attitude that defined that offense, especially in the run game. He made the guys around him, most of whom only had a couple of years left in their careers, play at an extremely high level. He set the tone for that team.

The guy for our SB team that should have been a leader, shit down his leg. It's sab for a team to say "our center was the leader of our offense".(not going to find many championships there) If my QB is not a leader, I don't want him. Name any great QB that wasn't a leader. Name some great QB's that were not winners.

 

To sum all that stuff up: my beef with the "winner" myth is that it's a superstition, and it's used to justify the assumption that quarterbacks with losing records are bad leaders. A lot of commentators look at a guy like Cutler and say "oh, he's not a winner." And what they really mean to imply is that he's a bad leader or a bad competitor. But they don't back that up by talking to his teammates (who say he's a great leader) or talking to his coaches (who say he's extremely competitive.) They back it up by pointing to his team's win/loss record, which is just wrong. When people say "Cutler's never been a winner, even in college" they're saying he's a lousy leader or he's uncompetitive because his teams lost. But like nfoligno said, the guy doesn't play defense, and his defenses have always been putrid. He could have been General Patton...he still wouldn't have been able to lead Vanderbilt to victory in the SEC, not with that defense. Same goes for the Broncos, and (like it or not) for the Bears this season. The best leaders in football still need a team around them to have a winning season.

Again, it's not a superstition. And when commentators say someone's a loser or a winner, that's what they mean. You have to be a leader to be a winner. I can see how people can call Cutler a loser, because he makes plays that really cost a team. He can also back it up with brilliance. Until he unbalances the scale in his favor, he will be a loser. On leadership, he's got a lot of the components like toughness, and confidence. But he really needs to work on his demeanor. He should never hang his head again and keep the fire in his eyes. Say what you want, but I will not relent on this stance because I know it to be true.