It's all on Jay...

[CrackerDog]

By the way, I've been meaning to say this ever since the thread was opened but haven't. It isn't all on Jay. I disagree with the supposed premise of this thread based on the title alone. And it isn't because of the original post because Mad wasn't saying "It's all on Jay" as to whether the team succeeds or fails, he was saying it's all on Jay in terms of pressure because if the Bears succeed despite the obvious problems on this team, it'll benefit Jay directly. And a team failure could impact Jay negatively whether it's fair or not.

 

But the point I'm trying to make here is that there are folks who are looking at these two games and will be jumping up and down pissing their pants if the Bears don't win. They'll blame Jay even if he and the offense puts up 38 points but the D gives up 41. Watch for it.

 

Fortunately, our coaches and front office will know better. If Jay really is to blame, I'll be happy to join you in shitting all over him. But if he isn't, or better yet, if he's the reason for the team winning, you can bet I'll be on his side. I hope to do a little grave dancing here on some of you Benedict Arnold types. You know who you are.

[CrackerDog]

Is that because AJ improved or because McCown does better at surveying the field?

 

Honestly I'm tired of the McCown/Cutler war and I'm going to refuse to fight it, at least tonight as I've got to run. But to answer your question, I'd say the swap was just that, the two of them got approx the same number of throws to them as a group with Josh favoring Alshon and Cutler favoring Marshall. I don't think you should make anything more of it than that to be honest. There could be dozens of factors influencing that including practice time experience one has with the other, coverages and personnel the opposition had on the field, etc. We know Cutler favors Marshall because of a significant amount of experience with him and the trust they've built up. That CERTAINLY isn't a bad thing. Imagine Marshall next year on this team if they're unfair to Cutler in his eyes and his "boy" is gone.

 

As to Josh/Cut, the team will make that decision and as long as it isn't blatantly based on bullshit, I'll support it as long as the money potentially left over from not signing Cutler is immediately plowed into free agents to rebuild the D. I'm pretty confident we'll see Cutler out there in orange & blue next season but there could be a lot of behind the scenes stuff that Trestman and Emery know that we all don't that will factor into the decision. I do assume it's still an open matter and that it could go either way and that money and talent will be balanced when the final decision is made, either way.

[jason]

What's good should be good for the gander (bolded). McCown has played with that same crap D. In fact, many here have said that the D was better early in the season, when Jay was playing, before they lost several of their key players. So.....in reality it's McCown that has had he benefit (or detriment) of playing with a bad D, thus putting pressure on HIM to perform.

 

And by not making the comparison to an "all time great" but instead to a former HS Football coach, I found that in 8 games (counting Detroit #2) Cutler threw 13 TDs to 8 INTs and fumbled the ball 3 times. Where McC (in 7 games) did 13 TDs to 1 Int and 1 Fumb. That perhaps measures the "wildly out of control" you are referring to.

 

 

 

I think pretty highly of McCown too, especially given from where he started. But looking at pure "distibution" in the games that both McCown and Cutler played with Marshall and Jeffery as the primary WR's. In the first 8 games (predominately Cutler) Marshall had 46 receptions to 38 with McCown. Whereas Jeffery had 33 receptions in the same sample to 42 with McCown. Almost a literal swap. Is that because AJ improved or because McCown does better at surveying the field?

 

 

 

So let's look at this last week. Cutler targeted BM 13 times to AJ's 5 (one of which was the 'hail mary' reception). Of those numbers 9 were caught by Marshall in the first half and 3 by Jeffery. The rest (4 / 2) were in the second half. What does that tell me? It tells me that we are confirmed that Cutler was looking like his old self in the first half by trying too much to hit BM. He seemed to spread it around more in the second half. Why? One can only speculate but my guess is he either figured it our or was told to.

 

Again using the Cleveland game as a simple measuring stick I would say I agree that Cutler is "improving". Not sure how well but the next two games will better determine what to do with him next.

 

Thanks for putting in the effort I didn't feel like putting in. Agree wholeheartedly with the post.

[jason]

No, it isn't. That single stat (and according to you it's only .33) reflects exactly that Cutler is fairly close to "Joe Cool" when it comes to what he's most accused of being bad at, brainfart picks. I realize you'll never admit to losing an argument so I'll just leave it at that. I never said Cutler was a good as Montana. You like to argue with people based on things they never said. That's generally considered not cool.

 

I criticized the comparison, which you made. The comparison is just foolhardy.

 

All of this is horseshit. I assume this year he hasn't "had to" as you blather. I'm sorry, hitting your RB with 10 passes in a game, helping to create a new young WR superstar in Jeffery this year, hitting both Bennetts when that's what the defense was giving him... Are you off your meds?

 

See Alaska's point and try not being combative for once.

 

Does Cutler call his plays? Does he decide the personnel groupings? Is it him who keeps the FB in for additional blocking on the rare occassion the FB is actually on the field on a pass play? Shit man, even your newfound "wanna humpy hump" stud Josh McCown topped out at 2 passes to the FB this year, that's a full reception more than Cutler! JESUS MAN, YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT'S 100% MORE!!!

 

Once again...it's not literally about the FB. Did you (can you) read: not that it was specifically a FB. ? Talk abut arguing with people based on things they never said. Try reading some more and actually understanding the point being made before unleashing the caps lock mentality, and button.

[jason]

first off... i am not being facetious when i ask you how much have you actually watched the 49ers of the 80's play. have you really watched them during that period? i can say that i have watched a lot of 9er's football at that time and not because i wanted to. they were always on because they were always in the post season mix.

 

montana was the essence of what you call the accurate pin-point passer. add this to his timing (which is of critical importance) in hitting the multitude of receivers in stride. he was excellent at this and could think/see 3-dimensionally when looking at the field and assimilate the information very quickly. thus the old adage of the game slowing down.

 

that said, there is never going to be a real 'set-in-stone' comparison statistically between these two QB's because their styles of play and the systems they played in are a WHOLE lot different. but i think the comparisons can be made in a general sense but you have to look at it in an abstract way to slot in the surrounding talent and coaching.

 

Yes. I watched tons of games for the same reasons you did. And I agree with the thought that comparison is near impossible. Abstract is right. Picasso-level abstract.

 

these stats are very misleading. for you to say that the 9er's running backs or fullback's were for some reason an unusual target from a great QB compared to what cutler has done is not really the case.

 

it was the system they worked within. the S.F. west coast offense as it worked at that time used it's short passing attack as a large part of it's running game. in other words they used a lot of short passes to it's RB's instead of calling a running play and in essence cultivated the same results.

 

this had multiple implications. they could run the ball with a very good RB or use the short passing game in it's stead. this also opened up the their medium to deep passing attack by freezing the LB's and safeties in short zones thus making a lot of MOM matchups downfield (also, a LOT of rice's yardage was YAC from short to medium passes). it also opened up a lot of room for a running play to succeed.

 

one more item... d. clark was a really nice receiver. he wasn't fast per se' but he was large with good hands. this was the guy that was our marshal or JEFFERY in the endzone. at 6'4 he was an unusually large receiver for that time and was a key target of montana in the red zone.

 

I agree the system had a lot to do with Montana's checkdowns, and it wasn't necessarily Joe Montana making the decision on his own. However, it goes straight into the point many have made about Cutler buying fully into a system instead of locking in on Marshall. It's what many believe - me included - he has yet to fully do, and it's precisely why McCown did well. It's not like McCown did that well at any other time in his career. He bought in, and the system fits him well.

 

 

if i am misunderstanding your point my apologies in advance...

 

you can not possibly compare previous seasons in chicago with anything. there is nothing in the books to compare with the ineptitude of our coaches and players on offense.

 

that cutlers game stats are even close to what they are is a testament to him having at least good qb capabilities with NO offensive line, with NO receivers and NO gameplan or coaching.

 

finally... defenses DO make a difference in a very big way as they have done here in chicago this season. the long sustained drives on nearly every series eats up the clock and takes time AWAY from your offense. instead of watching the game on the sidelines they could be generating offense themselves to score points and finish the game out.

 

there are in my estimation at least 2 extra series a game our offense could be on the field.

 

Yeah, that's a misunderstanding. My point about defense was a direct reply to Cracker's insistence that the INT difference between Montana and Cutler was somehow tied to defense. Normally I'd agree that there is some merit to this line of reasoning, like you've pointed out, but the simple fact is, Cutler threw plenty of picks the last three years and the Bears had pretty damn good defenses then.

[CrackerDog]

but the simple fact is, Cutler threw plenty of picks the last three years and the Bears had pretty damn good defenses then.

 

And horrible O Lines, coordinators and WR's.

 

My point wasn't just about this year. Those things above applied to most of his earlier seasons with the Bears and the D this year.

[CrackerDog]

Once again...it's not literally about the FB. Did you (can you) read: not that it was specifically a FB. ? Talk abut arguing with people based on things they never said. Try reading some more and actually understanding the point being made before unleashing the caps lock mentality, and button.

 

Answer the question! Does Cutler get to decide who he has with him on the field? What patterns they'll run? What the blocking schemes are? My point wasn't specific to FB either. The guys who see the field and go out into patterns seem to all be getting their catches. How do I know this? Your hero Josh has generally focused on the same 5/6 receivers as Cutler in the games he played in. There were two games of his 5 where he hit more than 6 guys and they were always one offs like the reception Rosario got against the Boys or the one Kyle Long got against the Queens. Admittedly 7 total receivers got hit (including Bush & Fiametta) during the Rams game but we were getting our asses kicked so that hardly counts as a normal game.

 

Face it, with this being Trestman's first year, it seems like he's limiting the offense a bit for both QB's. We don't see 9 guys getting involved like you might if Manning was playing QB. Maybe it'll be that in the future. This offense is just a baby and it's already wildly successful.

 

So be a man and admit you're wrong.