Cutler and his future

[jason]

And, you sir, are delusional to say that he wouldn't. Look bud, noone is saying that he absolutely would have taken, but but to suggest that he wouldn't when the guy just took a LT prospect is just wrong.

 

Really, you cant say either way, so all of this fortune telling you are trying to do is moot.

 

Are you even reading your own posts?! I am not the one trying to fortue tell. I know what happened; the Bears traded for Cutler. You guys are the ones swearing up and down that the Bears would have drafted OL, despite what history has shown us. Angelo has a track record of drafting positions other than OL. This is a fact.

 

Delusional? I guess you guys are completely ignoring draft history and tendencies. Is it possible that Angelo would have pulled the trigger on OL? Maybe. But it sure as hell isn't likely considering his aversion to the practice, and his failure thus far when he DID stick his neck out.

[rockren]

I can't believe what I'm reading. We'd be better off going forward with Orton than Cutler? Orton has been throwing against prevent defenses most of the year, playing from behind and his stats are inflated. Anyone that has followed the Broncos or had him in fantasy football knows it. Have people forgotten Orton's inability to break glass from 20 yards? As soon as it gets cold out Orton's primitive arm-strength will stick out like a sore thumb.

 

Yeah...you're right. Orton is so awesome Denver drafted Tim Tebow to succeed him. GTFO!

 

As far as Cutler being a disappointment, it's hard to argue that at this point. His little statement of "I'd go right after him (Hall) tomorrow" shows how immature he is. He's gotta grow up and everyone knows it.

 

For people to act like Cut having three different OCs/Offenses the past three years shouldn't have been that big of a problem need to get their head examined. Cutler's career has been ruined because how it ended in Denver and the Bears following suit with an unstable OLine and offensive coaching staff.

 

If you want to be disappointed in Cutler at this point...that's fine. But to give up on him already? Don't post here and support the Bears if/when he proves you wrong because the only rational way to give up on Cutler this early is if you're wanting him to fail.

[rockren]

The org sticks with him through his contract.

 

The fans are already on his case justifiably.

 

There have been rumors that the D is getting fed up...I think if the losing continues in the fashion they've been losing, give it to about week 12, and you'll see the D give up.

 

The new org will keep Cutler. There's too much upside. A coaching staff worth its wieght can figure out a way to make him work. Cowher turned Kordell into a playoff QB...he can certianly do so w/ Cutlet. McDaniels is a douchebag of the highest order...I trust nothing that guy has done.

 

This

 

 

['TD']

I can't believe what I'm reading. We'd be better off going forward with Orton than Cutler? Orton has been throwing against prevent defenses most of the year, playing from behind and his stats are inflated. Anyone that has followed the Broncos or had him in fantasy football knows it. Have people forgotten Orton's inability to break glass from 20 yards? As soon as it gets cold out Orton's primitive arm-strength will stick out like a sore thumb.

 

Yeah...you're right. Orton is so awesome Denver drafted Tim Tebow to succeed him. GTFO!

 

As far as Cutler being a disappointment, it's hard to argue that at this point. His little statement of "I'd go right after him (Hall) tomorrow" shows how immature he is. He's gotta grow up and everyone knows it.

 

For people to act like Cut having three different OCs/Offenses the past three years shouldn't have been that big of a problem need to get their head examined. Cutler's career has been ruined because how it ended in Denver and the Bears following suit with an unstable OLine and offensive coaching staff.

 

If you want to be disappointed in Cutler at this point...that's fine. But to give up on him already? Don't post here and support the Bears if/when he proves you wrong because the only rational way to give up on Cutler this early is if you're wanting him to fail.

 

You have a lot of people here that go back a long time together and like to argue with each other. Most have been here longer than me. Basically every on that posts here wants the Bears to win and be sucessful. None of us have given up on Cutler completely. You have a lot of frustration being argued and a lot of what we all felt should have happened being brought up. For me personally it was I would have kept orton and drafted linemen. Would that have happened, who knows. Given the state of shit at this moment, it gives us something to talk about.

 

Jason who has been one of my better friends off of here and the previous boards, and a staunch supporter of the WR corp, but the earliest advocate for the ofeensiveline needing help over the past few years is debating for cutler, and WR's are sucking now basically.

 

We all are aguing what we think shoulda, coula woulda with this team and some for the future if we just add this and that. There's not many things i could post in this debate about how i felt before, now or the future that could cause ill feelings with anyone here. It's just more of a reason for them to prove me wrong since i am on the negative side of this debate and as we all hope for the best next year and beyond fo the bearsl

[azbearsfan]

Are you even reading your own posts?! I am not the one trying to fortue tell. I know what happened; the Bears traded for Cutler. You guys are the ones swearing up and down that the Bears would have drafted OL, despite what history has shown us. Angelo has a track record of drafting positions other than OL. This is a fact.

 

Delusional? I guess you guys are completely ignoring draft history and tendencies. Is it possible that Angelo would have pulled the trigger on OL? Maybe. But it sure as hell isn't likely considering his aversion to the practice, and his failure thus far when he DID stick his neck out.

 

 

Enough with the drama.

 

The bottom line is you have no idea what JA would have done with the draft picks. To suggest that he would have taken an Oline is just as valid as saying that he would not have.

 

 

 

"Angelo has a track record of drafting positions other than OL. This is a fact."

 

You do realize that he just drafted Chris Williams who is an olineman. Fact.

 

[azbearsfan]

I can't believe what I'm reading. We'd be better off going forward with Orton than Cutler? Orton has been throwing against prevent defenses most of the year, playing from behind and his stats are inflated. Anyone that has followed the Broncos or had him in fantasy football knows it. Have people forgotten Orton's inability to break glass from 20 yards? As soon as it gets cold out Orton's primitive arm-strength will stick out like a sore thumb.

 

Yeah...you're right. Orton is so awesome Denver drafted Tim Tebow to succeed him. GTFO!

 

As far as Cutler being a disappointment, it's hard to argue that at this point. His little statement of "I'd go right after him (Hall) tomorrow" shows how immature he is. He's gotta grow up and everyone knows it.

 

For people to act like Cut having three different OCs/Offenses the past three years shouldn't have been that big of a problem need to get their head examined. Cutler's career has been ruined because how it ended in Denver and the Bears following suit with an unstable OLine and offensive coaching staff.

 

If you want to be disappointed in Cutler at this point...that's fine. But to give up on him already? Don't post here and support the Bears if/when he proves you wrong because the only rational way to give up on Cutler this early is if you're wanting him to fail.

 

 

 

Couple problems I have with this.

 

"For people to act like Cut having three different OCs/Offenses the past three years shouldn't have been that big of a problem need to get their head examined."

 

This was basically Cutler's doing. He whined his way out of Denver and basically got rid of Turner with his red zone turnovers. Now he is stuck with an OC that is getting him killed, but is just as arrogant as him. The grass is not always greener.

 

"Don't post here and support the Bears if/when he proves you wrong because the only rational way to give up on Cutler this early is if you're wanting him to fail."

 

lol, shoot, I hope he proves me wrong. He hasn't yet though. All I care about is wins. I'd rather dink and dunk and win, then have some "high powered" offense that loses the game for us. The part about not posting here is pretty funny coming from a guy with 8 posts though.

[jason]

Enough with the drama.

 

The bottom line is you have no idea what JA would have done with the draft picks. To suggest that he would have taken an Oline is just as valid as saying that he would not have.

 

"Angelo has a track record of drafting positions other than OL. This is a fact."

 

You do realize that he just drafted Chris Williams who is an olineman. Fact.

 

Math and statistics clearly aren't your strong suit. While the unknown is impossible to prove either way, we CAN base an educated guess on the years Angelo has been in charge. Extrapolation.

 

How many years has Angelo been in charge of the Bears' draft?

How many OLinemen has he drafted in the first two rounds?

How many of those high picks used on OL have been busts or completely underwhelming?

 

Answer those three questions and it's very likely the pick wouldn't have been OL.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Yeah, I'm not sure that saying "Williams was drafted by Angelo" makes any sense. No one ever said he HAS NEVER taken a C, G, or OT. But the track record shows that the probablity that he would've is pretty low. Chances are, Angelo would've went with a CB, DE, or DT.

[azbearsfan]

Math and statistics clearly aren't your strong suit. While the unknown is impossible to prove either way, we CAN base an educated guess on the years Angelo has been in charge. Extrapolation.

 

How many years has Angelo been in charge of the Bears' draft?

How many OLinemen has he drafted in the first two rounds?

How many of those high picks used on OL have been busts or completely underwhelming?

 

Answer those three questions and it's very likely the pick wouldn't have been OL.

 

 

 

lol Actually they are...which allows me to still say that you have no idea what would have been done with the picks. If you look recently, Angelo himself has said that he has cooled on the notion that an Oline is to be built up from FA and that drafting is a better way to go.

 

Situations change, looking at his drafts from 5 years ago tell us nothing of what might happen today.

 

The team has changed, needs have changed, and philosophy has changed.

 

Now, with that being said, perhaps JA would not have taken an olineman. But to say that there is no way, is simply not true.

[defiantgiant]

Here's my take:

 

In hindsight, the Bears would be better off right now with Orton and the picks, PROVIDED that they had hit on all three picks. They could have taken Mike Oher, TJ Lang, and Anthony Davis. Orton could look pretty good behind a line of Oher-Lang-Kreutz-Garza-Davis. Then yeah, Chicago's offense would probably be good with Orton under center. But Angelo did a lot wrong after the trade had already gone down, too. The two 2nd-rounders he used on Gilbert/Melton (after trading down) and Gaines Adams could have been Phil Loadholt and Vlad Ducasse. If he hadn't wasted those two picks, Loadholt and Ducasse could beef up the o-line and we'd still have Cutler and Johnny Knox from the trade. It's totally possible that a competent GM could have used those picks to put a good supporting cast around Orton, and it's just as possible that a competent GM could have done the trade without sacrificing the o-line or setting Cutler up to fail. The bottom line is that Angelo isn't a competent GM, and he did what he always does, which is blow all his picks on d-line.

 

If it were up to me, I'd still do the trade, and I still think it'll work out the best for Chicago in the long run, once there's a competent front office in place. If Angelo gets ousted, as I hope he will, the new regime is going to have some work ahead of them. They're going to have to shore up the o-line, go back to an offense that's a fit for Cutler's skillset, and draft a big receiver like AJ Green or Julio Jones or Michael Floyd. If they do that, I don't see any reason why he can't produce like he did in 2008, when he was a Pro Bowl quarterback. Cutler's mechanical problems don't seem to be as bad when the line keeps him clean and the offense allows him to leave the pocket more. His anticipation problems aren't as big of an issue in an offense that usually calls for him to throw to an open man, not a spot on the field. His tendency to force throws into coverage didn't kill as many drives when he had a big, powerful receiver who could beat most DBs for a jump ball.

 

As much as I liked Orton back in 2008, and as well as he's played since then, Cutler was clearly the superior talent. Trading for him, picks and all, was a good move. The bad move was squandering the remaining draft picks that could have put him in a position to succeed, and I'm pretty convinced that Angelo would have done that even if he'd had 10 first-rounders.

[madlithuanian]

And let's not forget we could have had Michael Turner over Forte...and had that pick for something else.

 

 

 

Here's my take:

 

In hindsight, the Bears would be better off right now with Orton and the picks, PROVIDED that they had hit on all three picks. They could have taken Mike Oher, TJ Lang, and Anthony Davis. Orton could look pretty good behind a line of Oher-Lang-Kreutz-Garza-Davis. Then yeah, Chicago's offense would probably be good with Orton under center. But Angelo did a lot wrong after the trade had already gone down, too. The two 2nd-rounders he used on Gilbert/Melton (after trading down) and Gaines Adams could have been Phil Loadholt and Vlad Ducasse. If he hadn't wasted those two picks, Loadholt and Ducasse could beef up the o-line and we'd still have Cutler and Johnny Knox from the trade. It's totally possible that a competent GM could have used those picks to put a good supporting cast around Orton, and it's just as possible that a competent GM could have done the trade without sacrificing the o-line or setting Cutler up to fail. The bottom line is that Angelo isn't a competent GM, and he did what he always does, which is blow all his picks on d-line.

 

If it were up to me, I'd still do the trade, and I still think it'll work out the best for Chicago in the long run, once there's a competent front office in place. If Angelo gets ousted, as I hope he will, the new regime is going to have some work ahead of them. They're going to have to shore up the o-line, go back to an offense that's a fit for Cutler's skillset, and draft a big receiver like AJ Green or Julio Jones or Michael Floyd. If they do that, I don't see any reason why he can't produce like he did in 2008, when he was a Pro Bowl quarterback. Cutler's mechanical problems don't seem to be as bad when the line keeps him clean and the offense allows him to leave the pocket more. His anticipation problems aren't as big of an issue in an offense that usually calls for him to throw to an open man, not a spot on the field. His tendency to force throws into coverage didn't kill as many drives when he had a big, powerful receiver who could beat most DBs for a jump ball.

 

As much as I liked Orton back in 2008, and as well as he's played since then, Cutler was clearly the superior talent. Trading for him, picks and all, was a good move. The bad move was squandering the remaining draft picks that could have put him in a position to succeed, and I'm pretty convinced that Angelo would have done that even if he'd had 10 first-rounders.

 

[defiantgiant]

And let's not forget we could have had Michael Turner over Forte...and had that pick for something else.

 

Turner would have been nice and we could have picked DeSean Jackson with that 2nd, but after the way Forte put the 2008 offense on his back, I'd pick him every time. It's not a rational thing, it's just that he was about the only player who gave me some hope in the team that year. The same goes for Hester back in 2007. You could certainly argue that the offense might be better with Turner and Jackson, but I'm still a fan of Forte and Hester.

[madlithuanian]

I love what he did in 2008, but I'd still take Turner over Forte any day... And it wouldn't have cost us a draft pick. How can you pass up a 2 for 1?

 

Let's leave hester out of this...that's not the argument. I'm fond of Forte, but Turner is also a local product that I'm sure you would have loved just as much had he comes here instead.

 

Turner would have been nice and we could have picked DeSean Jackson with that 2nd, but after the way Forte put the 2008 offense on his back, I'd pick him every time. It's not a rational thing, it's just that he was about the only player who gave me some hope in the team that year. The same goes for Hester back in 2007. You could certainly argue that the offense might be better with Turner and Jackson, but I'm still a fan of Forte and Hester.

 

[defiantgiant]

I love what he did in 2008, but I'd still take Turner over Forte any day... And it wouldn't have cost us a draft pick. How can you pass up a 2 for 1?

 

Let's leave hester out of this...that's not the argument. I'm fond of Forte, but Turner is also a local product that I'm sure you would have loved just as much had he comes here instead.

 

Yeah, I can't make any rational argument for it. Turner's been a beast in Atlanta, and our short-yardage/goal-line offense would definitely be better with a guy his size running the ball. Turner and a 2nd is better value than Forte, no question. But if it were me pulling the trigger, I just couldn't bring myself to not pick Forte; he WAS the offense his rookie year, and that was so awesome to watch. Just one of those irrational sports-fan things.

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough. I can't argue with non-logic!

 

Yeah, I can't make any rational argument for it. Turner's been a beast in Atlanta, and our short-yardage/goal-line offense would definitely be better with a guy his size running the ball. Turner and a 2nd is better value than Forte, no question. But if it were me pulling the trigger, I just couldn't bring myself to not pick Forte; he WAS the offense his rookie year, and that was so awesome to watch. Just one of those irrational sports-fan things.

 

[selection7]

Why do you take this as fact? What in Angelo's track record suggests that he would have picked an OLineman? Nothing.

I see a miscommunication. I try not to be long-winded, but sometimes it's hard to explain things well and also be quick, so this time I'll be longwinded regardless. I said " Well, the real reality is we traded a bunch of high value picks and our QB for their QB and one low value pick. But it's not interesting to debate/question reality is it?... its fact. Because there can be no debate. It's right there on Wikipedia". What's in bold is what I was referring to as fact. At the core, my point is very not-profound...it's just that there can be no debate about what actually happend, i.e. fact. What can be debated is what should we have done.

 

I didn't like that you were conflating what really happens with what should. But there are hypothetical exceptions, so I'll take your side for a moment. An example would be you could argue that what specifically Angelo (as opposed to the organization) should have done is to not be concerned about OL picks because McCkaskey wouldn't let him draft OL anyway, thus making the picks relatively meaningless, and admitting that sometimes you have to make decisions that defy conventional wisdom because you're forced to compensate for someone else's poor decision, which is the reality of life...and this statement mixes in reality while yet addressing the hypothetical in an appropriate way I'd say. But the reason this hypothetical doesn't apply is that the man who decided on the Cutler trade is also the same person who decides who to draft (Angelo!). So it's silly to ask what should Angelo have done on the trade but then conveniently leave out what JA should have done with the picks that were in the trade (and you take it a step further by not just ignoring it, but actively using it as a rebuttle against what he should have done).

 

Explanation condensed, you have to ask yourself "Am I interested in what JA should have done with no caveats, or what JA should have done with the caveat that we won't consdier what he should have done with the draft picks? I think the latter question is not valid because the answer is meaningless... but if that's the question you're sure you want to ask and answer, you technically can, I'll admit. My problem with your post is I felt you are misleading people who read over it hastily and don't notice the difference between the two questions. As long as you're up front about it, I don't care.

 

By the way, what with this "you're stating the Bears DEFINITELY would have picked OL"??? I never said that. I try not to put words in other peoples mouths and it irritates me when it's done to me. I clearly said you'd be fooling yourself to not THINK one of those picks would have gone to OL..."think" implies opinion. You could have said "well, we never go OL so I think we wouldn't have in that situation either". At least that would be a valid argument, even though I don't agree because it's never been more obvious that we need OL lately and having more picks would have allowed a freedom to go with a "best player availble" mentality some of the time, and a "need" strategy other times. Having very few quality picks constrains you. That's also the answer to your last question, though I'll admit the point you bring up is important to consider, that's not the same as saying it's convincing.

As for logical fallacies, you're the one trying to prove something that is impossible to prove (i.e. what the Bears would have done). You are stating that the Bears DEFINITELY would have picked someone for the OL with a first round pick. The evidence and history suggests otherwise. Nobody is debating what happened IN the trade, but you're sure as hell trying to debate something that would have happened, despite your position's contradiction with history.

Nevertheless, if we all think it was such a great need, and you're absolutely convinced that it was the Bears' #1 priority, and the Bears' front office also thought that, then why didn't they draft an OL with the first available pick last year? Shortly after the Bears picked Major Wright there were two quality OLinemen selected in the end of the third. Figure that one out.

 

[azbearsfan]

~delete~

[jason]

I see a miscommunication. I try not to be long-winded, but sometimes it's hard to explain things well and also be quick, so this time I'll be longwinded regardless. I said " Well, the real reality is we traded a bunch of high value picks and our QB for their QB and one low value pick. But it's not interesting to debate/question reality is it?... its fact. Because there can be no debate. It's right there on Wikipedia". What's in bold is what I was referring to as fact. At the core, my point is very not-profound...it's just that there can be no debate about what actually happend, i.e. fact. What can be debated is what should we have done.

 

I didn't like that you were conflating what really happens with what should. But there are hypothetical exceptions, so I'll take your side for a moment. An example would be you could argue that what specifically Angelo (as opposed to the organization) should have done is to not be concerned about OL picks because McCkaskey wouldn't let him draft OL anyway, thus making the picks relatively meaningless, and admitting that sometimes you have to make decisions that defy conventional wisdom because you're forced to compensate for someone else's poor decision, which is the reality of life...and this statement mixes in reality while yet addressing the hypothetical in an appropriate way I'd say. But the reason this hypothetical doesn't apply is that the man who decided on the Cutler trade is also the same person who decides who to draft (Angelo!). So it's silly to ask what should Angelo have done on the trade but then conveniently leave out what JA should have done with the picks that were in the trade (and you take it a step further by not just ignoring it, but actively using it as a rebuttle against what he should have done).

 

Explanation condensed, you have to ask yourself "Am I interested in what JA should have done with no caveats, or what JA should have done with the caveat that we won't consdier what he should have done with the draft picks? I think the latter question is not valid because the answer is meaningless... but if that's the question you're sure you want to ask and answer, you technically can, I'll admit. My problem with your post is I felt you are misleading people who read over it hastily and don't notice the difference between the two questions. As long as you're up front about it, I don't care.

 

By the way, what with this "you're stating the Bears DEFINITELY would have picked OL"??? I never said that. I try not to put words in other peoples mouths and it irritates me when it's done to me. I clearly said you'd be fooling yourself to not THINK one of those picks would have gone to OL..."think" implies opinion. You could have said "well, we never go OL so I think we wouldn't have in that situation either". At least that would be a valid argument, even though I don't agree because it's never been more obvious that we need OL lately and having more picks would have allowed a freedom to go with a "best player availble" mentality some of the time, and a "need" strategy other times. Having very few quality picks constrains you. That's also the answer to your last question, though I'll admit the point you bring up is important to consider, that's not the same as saying it's convincing.

 

Very good reply. Your position is better understood, regardless of whether or not I agree with it. The reason being is what we think the Bears (i.e. Angelo) should do, and what they actually do, are far too often not the same thing. Of course, there is another miscommunication with the should aspect of all of this. I don't "ignore" what should have been done if the Bears had those picks from the Cutler trade - I simply am going off of past drafting history to state that it would be an anomoly if the Bears picked OL.

 

Your post does bring up an interesting concept, however:

-If Angelo and the Bears so very infrequently do what we expect they should, and I don't expect this time that they would have picked OL with those selections from the Cutler trade, then perhaps they would have done other than what I was expecting (like normal).