Josh McCown

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Throughout last night's game there were several references to Rich Gannon and Josh McCown. Most of which equated to the term Jon Gruden made that "McCown has travelled a hard road to get where he is, much like Rich Gannon". Of course Gruden would have some insight since Gannon was his QB during much his tenure in Oakland before going to TB. As was quoted in news sources: "Gannon thrived in Gruden's West Coast offense" (Wikipedia). Coincidently, Marc Trestman was the OC for Oakland during their Super Bowl run of 2004 and a year removed from Gannon's NFL MVP win.

 

The thought now is, could McCown be the newest version of Gannon? I think that a legitimate question. Not that many weeks ago I proposed the idea of replacing Cutler (although be it during the height of one of Cutler's turnover laden games) with McCown only to be told how ridiculous the thought was. McCown shows better poise as does Cutler with pcoket presence and is much more accurate in the regard of a 'true pocket passer'. Watching the WCO as it is supposed to be played, was demonstrated by McCown's play last night. And for that matter during the Washington game.

 

So, what to do with Cutler? IF McCown continues to display a better hand at playing this scheme better than Cutler than the team really has little choice of going away from him for next year. Would he (Cutler) accept a contract as a back-up QB? In that role, could he be able to learn from a player like McCown on really how to properly play in an WCO type offense? Maybe after one year under a player like McCown return as the starter with a better grasp of the offense that Trestman is utilizing?

 

All that being said, it is obvious that Cutler knows his time is now, hence his push to start next week. What will the team do if Cutler comes in and 'loses' against Detroit? What if they win and Cutler doesn't put up the same numbers as McCown? Will the team jeapordize its forward momentun just to give Cutler the chance to prove himself?

 

[CrackerDog]

Throughout last night's game there were several references to Rich Gannon and Josh McCown. Most of which equated to the term Jon Gruden made that "McCown has travelled a hard road to get where he is, much like Rich Gannon". Of course Gruden would have some insight since Gannon was his QB during much his tenure in Oakland before going to TB. As was quoted in news sources: "Gannon thrived in Gruden's West Coast offense" (Wikipedia). Coincidently, Marc Trestman was the OC for Oakland during their Super Bowl run of 2004 and a year removed from Gannon's NFL MVP win.

 

Gruden would know well what Gannon brought to the table. But he can't possibly have much insight into McCown. Gruden is one of those broadcasters who tends to exaggerate almost everything. I enjoy his comments most of the time but there's a lot of hyperbole there. And let's be honest, he isn't going to keep his audience if he says "Hey, we've got two backup QB's playing now and they both suck."

 

The thought now is, could McCown be the newest version of Gannon? I think that a legitimate question. Not that many weeks ago I proposed the idea of replacing Cutler (although be it during the height of one of Cutler's turnover laden games) with McCown only to be told how ridiculous the thought was.

 

Still sounds ridiculous to me. And I LOVE what I've seen from McCown. But dude, get a grip. He's played 1.5 games for us against a team that didn't expect to see him and a team that didn't have any measurable amount of film on him. I expect to see him play again this weekend.

 

McCown shows better poise as does Cutler with pcoket presence and is much more accurate in the regard of a 'true pocket passer'. Watching the WCO as it is supposed to be played, was demonstrated by McCown's play last night. And for that matter during the Washington game.

 

He isn't more accurate than Cutler but I agree, he had shown more poise. Cutler tends to get happy feet too quickly. McCown is relaxed with being in the pocket.

 

So, what to do with Cutler? IF McCown continues to display a better hand at playing this scheme better than Cutler than the team really has little choice of going away from him for next year. Would he (Cutler) accept a contract as a back-up QB? In that role, could he be able to learn from a player like McCown on really how to properly play in an WCO type offense? Maybe after one year under a player like McCown return as the starter with a better grasp of the offense that Trestman is utilizing?

 

All of the above is silly. You aren't signing Cutler as a backup. C'mon man... Frankly, if they see enough in McCown after another start or two, I'd expect them to try to sign him up as a backup for even longer, with the possible motivation of using it as a bargaining chip against Jay. And if they really like him, they'd let Jay go. But I doubt we'll know enough as Jay should be back very soon. Jay isn't going to change or learn anything from McCown that he hasn't already heard from the coaches ten thousand time. Jay's pretty arrogant.

 

All that being said, it is obvious that Cutler knows his time is now, hence his push to start next week. What will the team do if Cutler comes in and 'loses' against Detroit? What if they win and Cutler doesn't put up the same numbers as McCown? Will the team jeapordize its forward momentun just to give Cutler the chance to prove himself?

 

Don't know. I doubt they'll let Jay play this weekend unless he's 100%.

[madlithuanian]

Some interesting thoughts...except the idea that Cutler would ever accept being a back-up. Not a chance. If we forced his hand and tagged him, he would...but that would be the only way.

 

1. Love what I've seen from Josh. But, only 2 games of material isn't enough yet. Even if he isn't all that, he still is enough to be a 100% legit back-up that contributes as a quasi-coach.

 

2. If we see more of McCown due to Cutler's injury, and he continues to look great, then the club may have a tough decision. McCown would be a bargain compared to Cutler.

 

As much as I loved seeing what McCown did, I don't see the team moving away from Cutler for McCown. I just want Josh as a back-up. It's good to know we have someone of quality to hold down the fort. And as you mentioned, maybe the staff might not be afraid to bench Jay for the remainder of a game if he throws up a stinker.

 

 

 

 

Throughout last night's game there were several references to Rich Gannon and Josh McCown. Most of which equated to the term Jon Gruden made that "McCown has travelled a hard road to get where he is, much like Rich Gannon". Of course Gruden would have some insight since Gannon was his QB during much his tenure in Oakland before going to TB. As was quoted in news sources: "Gannon thrived in Gruden's West Coast offense" (Wikipedia). Coincidently, Marc Trestman was the OC for Oakland during their Super Bowl run of 2004 and a year removed from Gannon's NFL MVP win.

 

The thought now is, could McCown be the newest version of Gannon? I think that a legitimate question. Not that many weeks ago I proposed the idea of replacing Cutler (although be it during the height of one of Cutler's turnover laden games) with McCown only to be told how ridiculous the thought was. McCown shows better poise as does Cutler with pcoket presence and is much more accurate in the regard of a 'true pocket passer'. Watching the WCO as it is supposed to be played, was demonstrated by McCown's play last night. And for that matter during the Washington game.

 

So, what to do with Cutler? IF McCown continues to display a better hand at playing this scheme better than Cutler than the team really has little choice of going away from him for next year. Would he (Cutler) accept a contract as a back-up QB? In that role, could he be able to learn from a player like McCown on really how to properly play in an WCO type offense? Maybe after one year under a player like McCown return as the starter with a better grasp of the offense that Trestman is utilizing?

 

All that being said, it is obvious that Cutler knows his time is now, hence his push to start next week. What will the team do if Cutler comes in and 'loses' against Detroit? What if they win and Cutler doesn't put up the same numbers as McCown? Will the team jeapordize its forward momentun just to give Cutler the chance to prove himself?

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Still sounds ridiculous to me. And I LOVE what I've seen from McCown. But dude, get a grip. He's played 1.5 games for us against a team that didn't expect to see him and a team that didn't have any measurable amount of film on him.

 

The grip is firm. I have seen a few people use thiis "...there is no film..." arguement and don't understand it. McCown's not a rookie in his first year, he's been playing for 10 years now and a multitude of teams. What is he doing that is any different than before where he's playing different than Josh McCown of the last number of years? If your answer is 'the system' then perhaps its that and not the operator that is different. I would go further and say the operator (in this case McCown) is better than Cutler at running the system(?) "Hyperbole" or fact? That remains to be seen.

 

 

He isn't more accurate than Cutler but I agree, he had shown more poise. Cutler tends to get happy feet too quickly. McCown is relaxed with being in the pocket.

 

So how many turnovers has McCown committed...so far?

 

 

All of the above is silly. You aren't signing Cutler as a backup. C'mon man... Frankly, if they see enough in McCown after another start or two, I'd expect them to try to sign him up as a backup for even longer, with the possible motivation of using it as a bargaining chip against Jay. And if they really like him, they'd let Jay go. But I doubt we'll know enough as Jay should be back very soon. Jay isn't going to change or learn anything from McCown that he hasn't already heard from the coaches ten thousand time. Jay's pretty arrogant.

 

This was more 'food for thought' than anything but as you pointed out, Jay isn't going to change. His arrogance will get in the way, that much is true. So if not a back up, he (Cutler) either becomes a FA or trade bait after this year.

[southsideirish71]

The grip is firm. I have seen a few people use thiis "...there is no film..." arguement and don't understand it. McCown's not a rookie in his first year, he's been playing for 10 years now and a multitude of teams. What is he doing that is any different than before where he's playing different than Josh McCown of the last number of years? If your answer is 'the system' then perhaps its that and not the operator that is different. I would go further and say the operator (in this case McCown) is better than Cutler at running the system(?) "Hyperbole" or fact? That remains to be seen.

 

 

 

 

So how many turnovers has McCown committed...so far?

 

 

 

 

This was more 'food for thought' than anything but as you pointed out, Jay isn't going to change. His arrogance will get in the way, that much is true. So if not a back up, he (Cutler) either becomes a FA or trade bait after this year.

 

Jay Cutler is 9th in the NFL for Total QBR. He is 12th in overall QBR with a 91.7. The idea that 1.5 games is enough to ditch him to a backup is beyond foolish. The most beloved position in Chicago has always been the backup QB. The savior of all until they get over exposed.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

['TD']

Here's what I saw in McCown.

-He didn't lock onto his target as much and went through his progressions.

-His progressions seemed faster than Cutler.

-He didn't throw into triple coverage.

-He threw the ball away when he needed to.

-The seemed to be able to run more plays with him. (which may have just been him going through his progressions more)

-An enthusiasm that seems to rub off, due to being in a position he didn't think he would be.

-Read the defenses better before the snap. The running game seemed more effective against one of the leagues top run D's

EDIT: Forgot to say patience, he doesn't seem to see the ghosts that Cutler does.

 

What Cutler has that he doesn't

-He has better ball placement.

-A much better arm on the deep ball.

-Experience with the players on the team.

-Intangibles good and bad due to over trusting his physical abilities.

 

I think McCown is mentally a QB that can run the system better despite his physical limitations. Cutler is physically a better QB that limits the system due to dependence on his physical abilities.

 

The question to me is, does Cutler upgrade the team enough to warrant the 10 million or more a year over McCown and a rookie. I just haven't seen it in this system yet. You have to play who gives you the best chance to win this year, but next year has to be in consideration too.

 

Cutler needs to take another game or 2 off and give himself a chance to get 100%. It will also give the team a chance to evaluate whether the team needs to shell out that kind of money to keep Cutler around next year.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Jay Cutler is 9th in the NFL for Total QBR. He is 12th in overall QBR with a 91.7. The idea that 1.5 games is enough to ditch him to a backup is beyond foolish. The most beloved position in Chicago has always been the backup QB. The savior of all until they get over exposed.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

 

So looking at the same source you provided and breaking it down by weeks and individual game performance; McCown rated #2 in week 7 and #4 this last week. The average being somewhere in the top 5.

 

And breaking down Cutler's performance and how he acheived the ratings:

 

Week 1 - Rank 4th - 85.7

Week 2 - Rank 8th - 59.4 (31-30 win over Minnesota...MINNESOTA! Threw 2 Ints and 1 Fumble for direct score)

Week 3 - Rank 5th - 86.3 (Pittsburgh game. Two scores by our defense. Cutler was 20/30 159 yds 1 TD)

Week 4 - Rank 18 - 36.3 (3 ints and 1 fumble against Detroit - who we play this week)

Week 5 - Rank 15 - 62.3 (loss to NO)

Week 6 - Rank 4th - 88.9 (Win over the winless NYG)

 

 

 

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Here's what I saw in McCown.

-He didn't lock onto his target as much and went through his progressions.

-His progressions seemed faster than Cutler.

-He didn't throw into triple coverage.

-He threw the ball away when he needed to.

-The seemed to be able to run more plays with him. (which may have just been him going through his progressions more)

-An enthusiasm that seems to rub off, due to being in a position he didn't think he would be.

-Read the defenses better before the snap. The running game seemed more effective against one of the leagues top run D's

 

What Cutler has that he doesn't

-He has better ball placement.

-A much better arm on the deep ball.

-Experience with the players on the team.

-Intangibles good and bad due to over trusting his physical abilities.

 

I think McCown is mentally a QB that can run the system better despite his physical limitations. Cutler is physically a better QB that limits the system due to dependence on his physical abilities.

 

The question to me is, does Cutler upgrade the team enough to warrant the 10 million or more a year over McCown and a rookie. I just haven't seen it in this system yet. You have to play who gives you the best chance to win this year, but next year has to be in consideration too.

 

Cutler needs to take another game or 2 off and give himself a chance to get 100%. It will also give the team a chance to evaluate whether the team needs to shell out that kind of money to keep Cutler around next year.

 

All this, especially the bolded.

 

The second bolded part I think is the root of the answer. The 'mentality' to run the system. IMHO, I don't think you need the strong arm to make this form of WCO work. Most of the plays in the WCO scheme are predicated on the ability to make the progressions and complete the quick pass. I'm not going to say that McCown didn't miss opportunities but he made the best of what he was given. In some instances I could have easily seen Cutler try to force something that wasn't there.

 

One shining example was when the Bears were deep in their own territory, McCown recognized that Forte was covered by Raji on the screen. While standing in the pocket and in the endzone McCown instead threw it at the feet of Forte. I don't think Cutler would have done that. He would have instead tried to force it to either Forte, another receiver downfield or tried to scramble. All of which would have probably ended up bad.

[scs787]

Jay Cutler is 9th in the NFL for Total QBR. He is 12th in overall QBR with a 91.7. The idea that 1.5 games is enough to ditch him to a backup is beyond foolish. The most beloved position in Chicago has always been the backup QB. The savior of all until they get over exposed.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/qbr

 

And 8th in Completion%, just 1.3% away from being in the top 5.

 

I truly do believe it's the "system". When the OL holds up, and they did, I think any competent QB with an accurate arm is gonna have success. Especially when you're throwing to the new monsters of the midway.

 

If Jay doesn't come back Sunday It'd be real interesting to see how Josh does against the Lions who got to Jay quite a bit in the first game.

[Uncle Buck]

Here's what I saw in McCown.

-He didn't lock onto his target as much and went through his progressions.

-His progressions seemed faster than Cutler.

-He didn't throw into triple coverage.

-He threw the ball away when he needed to.

-The seemed to be able to run more plays with him. (which may have just been him going through his progressions more)

-An enthusiasm that seems to rub off, due to being in a position he didn't think he would be.

-Read the defenses better before the snap. The running game seemed more effective against one of the leagues top run D's

EDIT: Forgot to say patience, he doesn't seem to see the ghosts that Cutler does.

 

What Cutler has that he doesn't

-He has better ball placement.

-A much better arm on the deep ball.

-Experience with the players on the team.

-Intangibles good and bad due to over trusting his physical abilities.

 

I think McCown is mentally a QB that can run the system better despite his physical limitations. Cutler is physically a better QB that limits the system due to dependence on his physical abilities.

 

The question to me is, does Cutler upgrade the team enough to warrant the 10 million or more a year over McCown and a rookie. I just haven't seen it in this system yet. You have to play who gives you the best chance to win this year, but next year has to be in consideration too.

 

Cutler needs to take another game or 2 off and give himself a chance to get 100%. It will also give the team a chance to evaluate whether the team needs to shell out that kind of money to keep Cutler around next year.

 

 

Excellent post. I think McCown's skill set has allowed us to see what the system is intended to look like. At some point, upon his return, Cutler will put enough on tape for Trestman to evaluate as to whether Jay can ever become the man who truly masters this offense. I like what it looks like under McCown but Jay's skill set is still intriguing enough to hope it can be molded into this offense and make it even more dangerous.

[Connorbear]

McCown is a game manager and is not a franchise QB. He has played great the last 1.5 games but he is not a QB that takes a team to the SB. He will not be the starter on this team. When Cutler comes back, he will be the starter. If Trestman decides Cutler is not the QB they need (after he has more time to evaluate him), they will move on to someone else.

 

Peace

['TD']

McCown is a game manager and is not a franchise QB. He has played great the last 1.5 games but he is not a QB that takes a team to the SB. He will not be the starter on this team. When Cutler comes back, he will be the starter. If Trestman decides Cutler is not the QB they need (after he has more time to evaluate him), they will move on to someone else.

 

Peace

 

I agree with you and I don't. When I think of game manager, I think of Orton in his fist year or Trent Dilfer.

 

They managed games in offenses that were not potent. I think understanding this system will make a QB with a good grasp of it more than a game manager. The throw to Marshall on his TD was not a game managing move. It would have just been to throw it away.

 

I think McCown is more than a game manager in this system. However, I think they could bring someone in younger, and better skills that could eclipse him easily. I don't think Cutler's performance has eclipsed his to warrant 10 mill a year

 

I completely agree with the last sentence tho

[Alaskan Grizzly]

McCown is a game manager and is not a franchise QB. He has played great the last 1.5 games but he is not a QB that takes a team to the SB. He will not be the starter on this team. When Cutler comes back, he will be the starter. If Trestman decides Cutler is not the QB they need (after he has more time to evaluate him), they will move on to someone else.

 

Peace

 

How do explain Alex Smith? He's been described a 'game manager' by many talking heads this year AND is (for all intents and purposes) a franchise QB. His win/loss record is a combined 56/36 (SF and KC). Obviously he's 9-0 this year alone.

 

Edit: Since we're on the subject, how about Gannon? Which category did he fall under?

 

I agree partially that Cutler will be the starting QB IF he proves worthy. However if not, McCown will be (if it means later this year) and/or next year. I say this because I agree with the concept of the team drafting a QB "for the system" and McCown will keep the starting role warm while that player gets up to speed.

['TD']

How do explain Alex Smith? He's been described a 'game manager' by many talking heads this year AND is (for all intents and purposes) a franchise QB. His win/loss record is a combined 56/36 (SF and KC). Obviously he's 9-0 this year alone.

 

Edit: Since we're on the subject, how about Gannon? Which category did he fall under?

 

I agree partially that Cutler will be the starting QB IF he proves worthy. However if not, McCown will be (if it means later this year) and/or next year. I say this because I agree with the concept of the team drafting a QB "for the system" and McCown will keep the starting role warm while that player gets up to speed.

 

To be completely honest, I think Alex Smith is a game managing QB at the moment. Their D is so good, he isn't asked to win games. However, that is not the Bears system now. Smith has and could be a franchise QB in this system. He has the skills and smarts to be a big success in this system.

 

Cutler and McCown are on different ends of the spectrum, but I think the O flows better through him. McCown isn't a game manager here, but yet he isn't what I could call a Franchise QB. Cutler could be a Franchise QB in Cleveland, but I just don;t think he is in Chicago.

 

The Bears have a winning system and his qualities just don't mesh. To be honest, Cutler is a mid range QB. I would put McCown as bottom of the barrel on most teams. That said,the talent around him, how he can work this system and the talent that surrounds him, I think he can produce better results than Cutler, and for a significantly lower price till the next QB introduces himself. The additional money, and if I am right with him giving comparable or better results, the Bears could spen 10 million or more on the rest of the team to make the team even better.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

To be completely honest, I think Alex Smith is a game managing QB at the moment. Their D is so good, he isn't asked to win games. However, that is not the Bears system now. Smith has and could be a franchise QB in this system. He has the skills and smarts to be a big success in this system.

 

Cutler and McCown are on different ends of the spectrum, but I think the O flows better through him. McCown isn't a game manager here, but yet he isn't what I could call a Franchise QB. Cutler could be a Franchise QB in Cleveland, but I just don;t think he is in Chicago.

 

The Bears have a winning system and his qualities just don't mesh. To be honest, Cutler is a mid range QB. I would put McCown as bottom of the barrel on most teams. That said,the talent around him, how he can work this system and the talent that surrounds him, I think he can produce better results than Cutler, and for a significantly lower price till the next QB introduces himself. The additional money, and if I am right with him giving comparable or better results, the Bears could spen 10 million or more on the rest of the team to make the team even better.

 

Gotta say I like what you wrote here. Well said. You make a compelling 'argument'.

 

[BearFan2000]

I think ditching your starter for the new shiny thing after 1 1/2 games worth of action is premature. We can look at stats all we want but the sample sizes aren't the same, and the longer McCown plays the more film is on him in this system and next week if he starts will face the best DLine he's faced in his current stint filling in for Jay. The redskins D is awful, GB's pass rush is hampered by injury. Couple that with the gelling of our offensive line it may very well be a perfect storm. The offense as a whole has been gradually improving week to week, as the players get more comfortable in the system. When you look at the body of work from the time Jay got here to now, you can't discount that he's looked the best he has looked as a Bears QB this year. It looks as though this offense is starting to mature to the point where you can now take a competent QB and plug him in because the staff has done a good job of preparing both QB's.

 

 

I think we don't want to overreact either way to this. We don't want to look at the 1 1/2 games sample of McCown and say he's the answer, let Jay go, draft a rookie and hand the starting job to McCown. But we shouldn't discount his performance either he has looked good. I'll go back to a comment I made in a thread a week or so ago, about how it does beg the question that perhaps the style of QB Jay is isn't the best fit for this offense. Perhaps we'd be better off with a more traditional pocket passer. That's not to say I'm advocating that the answer is yes, but it is interesting to think about. There is a lot of speculation going on, but what we do know is we have two QB's who can run this offense and put up points that's more than we knew 2 1/2 weeks ago before Jay went down. That is something valuable to know going forward. Wether we resign Jay or not, it makes sense to at least sign McCown to a multi year contract as a #2. When Jay does come back we definitely have a measuring stick to evaluate his performance, and I'm sure that will weigh into the decision to either sign Jay long term, tag him, or let him walk. If Jay plays well and earns that extension, and we resign Josh long term as backup and draft a QB, that would be a great situation to have heading into next year. If Jay comes back we see a drop off in the offense with him vs McCown, that does open the door for the Bears to let Jay walk (he won't sign to be a backup), extend McCown, and draft promising young QB and maybe another vet. It would certainly be the cheaper option than a Cutler extension and we know the money could be well spent retooling the D.

 

However this shakes out, it's possibly going to be a tough decision at season's end. But I do think Emery and Trestman will look at all the options, and information and make a decision, I don't think it will be a hasty or quick one but will be thought out with a plan for the future.

[Connorbear]

I think ditching your starter for the new shiny thing after 1 1/2 games worth of action is premature. We can look at stats all we want but the sample sizes aren't the same, and the longer McCown plays the more film is on him in this system and next week if he starts will face the best DLine he's faced in his current stint filling in for Jay. The redskins D is awful, GB's pass rush is hampered by injury. Couple that with the gelling of our offensive line it may very well be a perfect storm. The offense as a whole has been gradually improving week to week, as the players get more comfortable in the system. When you look at the body of work from the time Jay got here to now, you can't discount that he's looked the best he has looked as a Bears QB this year. It looks as though this offense is starting to mature to the point where you can now take a competent QB and plug him in because the staff has done a good job of preparing both QB's.

 

 

I think we don't want to overreact either way to this. We don't want to look at the 1 1/2 games sample of McCown and say he's the answer, let Jay go, draft a rookie and hand the starting job to McCown. But we shouldn't discount his performance either he has looked good. I'll go back to a comment I made in a thread a week or so ago, about how it does beg the question that perhaps the style of QB Jay is isn't the best fit for this offense. Perhaps we'd be better off with a more traditional pocket passer. That's not to say I'm advocating that the answer is yes, but it is interesting to think about. There is a lot of speculation going on, but what we do know is we have two QB's who can run this offense and put up points that's more than we knew 2 1/2 weeks ago before Jay went down. That is something valuable to know going forward. Wether we resign Jay or not, it makes sense to at least sign McCown to a multi year contract as a #2. When Jay does come back we definitely have a measuring stick to evaluate his performance, and I'm sure that will weigh into the decision to either sign Jay long term, tag him, or let him walk. If Jay plays well and earns that extension, and we resign Josh long term as backup and draft a QB, that would be a great situation to have heading into next year. If Jay comes back we see a drop off in the offense with him vs McCown, that does open the door for the Bears to let Jay walk (he won't sign to be a backup), extend McCown, and draft promising young QB and maybe another vet. It would certainly be the cheaper option than a Cutler extension and we know the money could be well spent retooling the D.

 

However this shakes out, it's possibly going to be a tough decision at season's end. But I do think Emery and Trestman will look at all the options, and information and make a decision, I don't think it will be a hasty or quick one but will be thought out with a plan for the future.

 

 

Excellent post.

 

Peace

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I think ditching your starter for the new shiny thing after 1 1/2 games worth of action is premature. We can look at stats all we want but the sample sizes aren't the same, and the longer McCown plays the more film is on him in this system and next week if he starts will face the best DLine he's faced in his current stint filling in for Jay. The redskins D is awful, GB's pass rush is hampered by injury. Couple that with the gelling of our offensive line it may very well be a perfect storm. The offense as a whole has been gradually improving week to week, as the players get more comfortable in the system. When you look at the body of work from the time Jay got here to now, you can't discount that he's looked the best he has looked as a Bears QB this year. It looks as though this offense is starting to mature to the point where you can now take a competent QB and plug him in because the staff has done a good job of preparing both QB's.

 

I'm not sure that I was advocating for a "ditching of the starter" necessarily, just that we need to realize that in those "1 1/2 games" that McCown has looked better than has Cutler in the previous 6 1/2. The sample sizes are what they are. As I did with South side, I extrapolated the numbers (some say skewed) to show that Cutler wasn't as effective as a simple #7 rating (or whatever it boiled down to). You can offer up excuses for what type of defenses that McCown faced versus what Cutler faced but I think again you need to consider the defenses that Cutler did face. Of the 7 teams, how many were top tier defenses? Cinncinnati? Detroit maybe NO? Beyond that not a whole lot different statistically speaking. And one thing to consider, not all that long ago GB made it through much of the playoffs (think two years ago) with a much depleted defense. Dom Capers was and is still a very capable coordinator.

 

But speaking more to the "system". I agree most postively. You can practically "plug and play". However, I think the operator needs to be heavily considered when making that choice. So far, and a few here have seen it to, McCown seems to be the better fit than does Cutler.

 

 

If Jay plays well and earns that extension, and we resign Josh long term as backup and draft a QB, that would be a great situation to have heading into next year. If Jay comes back we see a drop off in the offense with him vs McCown, that does open the door for the Bears to let Jay walk (he won't sign to be a backup), extend McCown, and draft promising young QB and maybe another vet. It would certainly be the cheaper option than a Cutler extension and we know the money could be well spent retooling the D.

 

These are very valid points. You are right, if Jay comes back and plays lights out the rest of the season and knowing what we know about McCown, then yes only having to worry about signing both of them to long term deals and drafting a #3 is a good problem to have.

 

However and conversely speaking, if Jay stinks it up, then letting him walk and keeping McCown for 'caretaker' status and spending the money saved from Jay to beef up the defense isn't all that bad a problem either.

 

 

[Mongo3451]

Does anyone have an idea of the dollars Cutler and McCown would command on the open market? This may be a great continuing debate. Money vs talent. Manager vs gunslinger. Age vs youth. Personality, coachability, team chemistry and projected success will all come into play.

[jason]

My Father is one of those "I can fix it"-kind of guys. No matter what it is, he can do it. Even if he doesn't have the right tools to do it, he'll fight, fight, fight, and get a pretty good result most of the time. Is it 100%? No. Is it workable? Yes. He's got the skills and the know-how to make things work. One time we worked on removing a timing belt from my fix'er-up Firebird. It was awkward, we didn't have the right tools, and we got dirty, scraped, and still probably didn't have it on as well as it should have been.

 

We took it to a mechanic friend who had the right tool, didn't try to do more than was required, knew exactly what to move and how much, and the end result was a replaced timing belt with zero grease, zero scrapes, minimal effort in about 5 minutes.

 

My Dad is probably more handy overall than that mechanic, and there's usually extra effort and a few setbacks on the path to success, but that mechanic just did what was required.

[CrackerDog]

My Father is one of those "I can fix it"-kind of guys. No matter what it is, he can do it. Even if he doesn't have the right tools to do it, he'll fight, fight, fight, and get a pretty good result most of the time. Is it 100%? No. Is it workable? Yes. He's got the skills and the know-how to make things work. One time we worked on removing a timing belt from my fix'er-up Firebird. It was awkward, we didn't have the right tools, and we got dirty, scraped, and still probably didn't have it on as well as it should have been.

 

We took it to a mechanic friend who had the right tool, didn't try to do more than was required, knew exactly what to move and how much, and the end result was a replaced timing belt with zero grease, zero scrapes, minimal effort in about 5 minutes.

 

My Dad is probably more handy overall than that mechanic, and there's usually extra effort and a few setbacks on the path to success, but that mechanic just did what was required.

 

My dog is a digger. And he's a god damn fast runner. I'll bet he digs and runs better than Cutler, McCown and Jason's dad. Just sayin'.

[jason]

My dog is a digger. And he's a god damn fast runner. I'll bet he digs and runs better than Cutler, McCown and Jason's dad. Just sayin'.

 

I'm not sure if I don't understand your analogy or if it's an incredibly stupid reply to an honest comment I posted. In case it's the latter...

 

My Dad = Cutler

Mechanic = McCown

 

In both situations there are two PEOPLE who do things differently based on a skill-set, and it's possible that the guy with the lesser skill-set may just be better suited for this specific job.

[CrackerDog]

I'm not sure if I don't understand your analogy or if it's an incredibly stupid reply to an honest comment I posted. In case it's the latter...

 

My Dad = Cutler

Mechanic = McCown

 

In both situations there are two PEOPLE who do things differently based on a skill-set, and it's possible that the guy with the lesser skill-set may just be better suited for this specific job.

 

Oh, I got your analogy. I was just trying to be funny in response rather than saying...

 

I've been a Bears fan my whole god damn life and I've never seen the Bears with a better QB than Cutler. He's an arrogant jerk but he's got excellent skills. And he's proven that this year, yet again his first in another new system, that he can be very successful. I look forward to seeing what he can produce going forward into the future, that includes the rest of this year and hopefully several seasons to come under Trestman. Because it'll only get more awesome. And anyone, ANYONE, who thinks it's best to go back to having a journeyman QB, no matter how well he's produced in 1.5 games, is a friggen moron. I may change my mind on this if Cutler comes back from this injury and has even worse happy feet or for other unforeseen reasons.

 

So Jason, basically, go f*ck yourself. I'm sick of you calling me and/or anyone else here stupid. You go through this whole big long contrived bullshit story just to show what three other people above you have already said in this thread. Bravo, you're so brillant! Get over yourself.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Oh, I got your analogy. I was just trying to be funny in response rather than saying...

 

I've been a Bears fan my whole god damn life and I've never seen the Bears with a better QB than Cutler. He's an arrogant jerk but he's got excellent skills. And he's proven that this year, yet again his first in another new system, that he can be very successful. I look forward to seeing what he can produce going forward into the future, that includes the rest of this year and hopefully several seasons to come under Trestman. Because it'll only get more awesome. And anyone, ANYONE, who thinks it's best to go back to having a journeyman QB, no matter how well he's produced in 1.5 games, is a friggen moron. I may change my mind on this if Cutler comes back from this injury and has even worse happy feet or for other unforeseen reasons.

 

So Jason, basically, go f*ck yourself. I'm sick of you calling me and/or anyone else here stupid. You go through this whole big long contrived bullshit story just to show what three other people above you have already said in this thread. Bravo, you're so brillant! Get over yourself.

 

Consider me a 'moron' then. The facts are what they are, McCown has looked better, althoughbeit in a lesser amount of games, than has Cutler in his body of work this year. And not only that but McCown has been able to succesfully produce in a shorter period of time than has Cutler.

 

That aside, I really don't want for Cutler to leave Chicago. Like you, I agree that the Bears have not had a high caliber QB like this since maybe Jimmy Mac. But if he continues this "Jekyll and Hyde" thing that he's notorious for, is it really to the betterment of the team? IF he plays this Sunday, my hope (and it is genuine) is that he plays near spectacular and continues that type of play to the end of the year. I for one love the idea of having two consistent QB's being able to play this system and put the team in the category of 'great offenses" (as odd as it may sound). It makes things a lot less complicated as the off season approaches.

 

And Jason for what its worth, I liked the story. It was a little sappy for your style, but I appreciated it nonetheless.

 

And Cracker, you're right. You are crotchety.

[jason]

Oh, I got your analogy. I was just trying to be funny in response rather than saying...

 

I've been a Bears fan my whole god damn life and I've never seen the Bears with a better QB than Cutler. He's an arrogant jerk but he's got excellent skills. And he's proven that this year, yet again his first in another new system, that he can be very successful. I look forward to seeing what he can produce going forward into the future, that includes the rest of this year and hopefully several seasons to come under Trestman. Because it'll only get more awesome. And anyone, ANYONE, who thinks it's best to go back to having a journeyman QB, no matter how well he's produced in 1.5 games, is a friggen moron. I may change my mind on this if Cutler comes back from this injury and has even worse happy feet or for other unforeseen reasons.

 

So Jason, basically, go f*ck yourself. I'm sick of you calling me and/or anyone else here stupid. You go through this whole big long contrived bullshit story just to show what three other people above you have already said in this thread. Bravo, you're so brillant! Get over yourself.

 

It's not my fault your "funny" reply was misleading and compared a dog to a person. The point of the board is to express opinion. Sometimes it's better to have unorthodox replies instead of a bunch of "Yes" and "Agreed." I'm sorry the analogy wasn't to your liking. As for your final comment, maybe you should change your screen name to Jonathan Martin.

 

-Full Disclosure: I don't think switching from Cutler to McCown is the right move at this time, but if McCown were to stay in for three or four more games with very similar results, I could be persuaded to think a move to McCown would be better for the overall health of the team (e.g. cap, roster, etc.).