Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Bears sign Cutler to 7 year extension


tazinib1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jim McMahon sucked btw

 

McMahon didn't suck, but he was far from great. He was a good field marshall, w/ good talent, and a great D.

The Cutler deal was a pretty much the only choice. Draft a young QB? Nah the talent pool is not that great this year and the Bears have proven the sport's worst luck/skill at QB drafting. FA? Who better than Cutler will be available for substantially less money? Also as a life long Bear fan I know the fan base feels the best QB is ALWAYS ON THE BENCH!!! McCown is not even a shot term solution as a starter. In 11 years he had 1 double digit GP season. All the rest were less than 10. How do so many think he is capable as a starter? He's a good backup. No thrills, decent skills, w/ high percentage completions. Sorta like Fuller was back in the day. And for the record...I never saw him play, but Luckman played during my lifetime.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asking why he left Jim of his list ?

 

 

Didn't really do it on purpose, just had to stop at some point...

 

McMahon was OK, but I'd put him more in the "game manager" category. The defense won most games for him. And as someone else said, he's no Cutler talent wise. McMahon gets remembered fondly more for his "punky QB" persona than for what he actually did on the field. And of course, for the fact that he happened to be the starting QB in the SB and most of that '85 season. I think Fuller could have started all year and they still would have won the SB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McMahon didn't suck, but he was far from great. He was a good field marshall, w/ good talent, and a great D.

The Cutler deal was a pretty much the only choice. Draft a young QB? Nah the talent pool is not that great this year and the Bears have proven the sport's worst luck/skill at QB drafting. FA? Who better than Cutler will be available for substantially less money? Also as a life long Bear fan I know the fan base feels the best QB is ALWAYS ON THE BENCH!!! McCown is not even a shot term solution as a starter. In 11 years he had 1 double digit GP season. All the rest were less than 10. How do so many think he is capable as a starter? He's a good backup. No thrills, decent skills, w/ high percentage completions. Sorta like Fuller was back in the day. And for the record...I never saw him play, but Luckman played during my lifetime.

 

 

:blink:

 

It was not the only option. :shrug:

 

The QB pool this year is extremely deep. And I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but it's widely regarded as fact that Trestman's offense does not need a gunslinging, risk-taking, high-priced signal caller. McCown PROVED it not by a couple of fluke games but by a string of games where he effectively OPERATED the offense.

 

No thrills, decent skills, w/ high percentage completions. = PERFECT FOR TRESTMAN'S OFFENSE!!!

 

:bash: I'm done with this subject. Cutler will again lead the Bears to another 9-7, 8-8 type of season. Yay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

McMahon didn't suck, but he was far from great. He was a good field marshall, w/ good talent, and a great D.

The Cutler deal was a pretty much the only choice. Draft a young QB? Nah the talent pool is not that great this year and the Bears have proven the sport's worst luck/skill at QB drafting. FA? Who better than Cutler will be available for substantially less money? Also as a life long Bear fan I know the fan base feels the best QB is ALWAYS ON THE BENCH!!! McCown is not even a shot term solution as a starter. In 11 years he had 1 double digit GP season. All the rest were less than 10. How do so many think he is capable as a starter? He's a good backup. No thrills, decent skills, w/ high percentage completions. Sorta like Fuller was back in the day. And for the record...I never saw him play, but Luckman played during my lifetime.

 

 

This line is of thought is why the Bears will never get near the Super Bowl for years. The Bears are the Cowboys of the North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought part of the point of the rookie wage scale was to make players show they can get the team over the hump before getting a big pay day.

 

Of course Cutler has all the talent in the world, but when he's getting outplayed by the backup and forcing balls to a triple-covered Marshall, he's shown very little to think he can get the Bears a championship.

 

Going to be interesting to see how this shift goes from big rookie money to any potential "franchise" QB getting a big pay day. My guess is that this will just lead even more to teams with proven franchise QBs and those who strike gold on guys still in their rookie contracts (Wilson, Cam, Luck) feasting on those paying guys who haven't proven it.

 

I do understand the supply/demand component (there are always more teams than there are franchise-type QBs, so someone is going to pay them), but at some point you have to look at the quality. It baffles me that teams are so quick to move on from a coaching staff, yet so stubborn to not move on from a QB that hasn't proven to be the answer.

Edited by delusions of grandeur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ole "sign someone else". Who? When?

 

 

Doesn't anyone thing Cutler is comparable to Joe Flacco? What kind of money did Flacco get for Moore's mistake in Denver last year?

 

 

Cutler is way better than Flacco who is easily the most overpaid player in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's the going rate for a good QB in today's market.

 

Whoever thinks Cutler is not capable of taking this team (with the supporting cast he has) to greater heights just wants to hate on Jay. Wow, he might actually have the same OC next year. He has weapons.

 

Without Cutler AND a really strong showing by McCown this year, this is a 4-12 team. Let's not sign him and go with a 34 year old journeyman and a rookie next year....that philosophy is outrageously dumb.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:

 

It was not the only option. :shrug:

 

The QB pool this year is extremely deep. And I'm not sure how many times I have to say it, but it's widely regarded as fact that Trestman's offense does not need a gunslinging, risk-taking, high-priced signal caller. McCown PROVED it not by a couple of fluke games but by a string of games where he effectively OPERATED the offense.

 

No thrills, decent skills, w/ high percentage completions. = PERFECT FOR TRESTMAN'S OFFENSE!!!

 

:bash: I'm done with this subject. Cutler will again lead the Bears to another 9-7, 8-8 type of season. Yay!

 

I know you are done, but the thing about all of this is: Cutler is Trestman's guy. End of story. Trestman is the one who wants Jay to be their QB. So all this talk about "any QB can excel in Trestman's offense" is obviously not what Trestman feels. If that was the case Jay would have been given the chance to go elsewhere. Trestman could have said "McCown runs the offense as well or better" and went with him as the starter. He OBVIOUSLY does not feel that way. Unless you have access to "All-22" game tapes (which is available to the public now for a fee) and truly understand scheme it is actually really difficult to make a case for why you think one QB is better than the other. Trestman goes over those tapes ad nauseam and made the decision that Cutler is the best available fit for his offense. He obviously feels Cutler runs the offense better than the newly crowned folk hero that is Josh McCown. If he didn't feel that way why on earth would they have signed Jay to this contract? His coaching career and legacy hang in the balance, so I doubt he just flipped a coin. This was a decision based on his knowledge of his own offensive scheme and who is best suited to run it. I'll trust Trestman knows who is the best choice over anyone else.

Edited by sausagekingchi
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a few more details this contract does NOT include a signing bonus, and can basically be voided by the Bears for no further cost and cut him after 3 full years. Those 3 years are for $54 million guaranteed and if he sucks as bad as everyone here is saying they can go in a different direction. Fine by me.

 

And gil is right: he's had ZERO OL protection for most of his time in Chicago and a new OC every single year if I'm not mistaken. That appears to be fixed now, along with the most offensive weapons the Bears have probably ever had.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a few more details this contract does NOT include a signing bonus, and can basically be voided by the Bears for no further cost and cut him after 3 full years. Those 3 years are for $54 million guaranteed and if he sucks as bad as everyone here is saying they can go in a different direction. Fine by me.

 

And gil is right: he's had ZERO OL protection for most of his time in Chicago and a new OC every single year if I'm not mistaken. That appears to be fixed now, along with the most offensive weapons the Bears have probably ever had.

 

 

That makes sense if it's a contract the Bears can get out of without much damage.

 

But I think it's silly to say, "well he's the best option we have right now", or "Trestman must know what he's doing if he wants Cutler as his QB". Coaches do have a tendency to do things to save their jobs that might not be in the best interest long-term for the organization.

 

I think it may be equally likely that he really believes in Cutler as it is that he and the GM might be worried about losing their jobs if they move on to another QB and it takes more time for success than the owners have patience with them.

 

But IMO, it should not just be treated as, well, that's the "going rate for a good QB in today's market". You either think the guy is capable of bringing you a championship or you should move on to the next guy.

 

I've actually always liked Cutler (despite his douchey apathetic demeanor), but I've not seen nearly enough indication that he's able to put all of his ability together and be a championship-caliber QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a few more details this contract does NOT include a signing bonus, and can basically be voided by the Bears for no further cost and cut him after 3 full years. Those 3 years are for $54 million guaranteed and if he sucks as bad as everyone here is saying they can go in a different direction. Fine by me.

 

And gil is right: he's had ZERO OL protection for most of his time in Chicago and a new OC every single year if I'm not mistaken. That appears to be fixed now, along with the most offensive weapons the Bears have probably ever had.

 

 

Great post. Heck, they can even cut him after 2 years with a liveable dead money hit. Unfortunately, QB's are like prom dates - if you don't have a 9, you better grab the 7's while they last, cause you don't want to get stuck with a 4. That 7 still is going to need a steak dinner and drinks, so you aren't getting off any cheaper, but at least you aren't going home with an uggo.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post. Heck, they can even cut him after 2 years with a liveable dead money hit. Unfortunately, QB's are like prom dates - if you don't have a 9, you better grab the 7's while they last, cause you don't want to get stuck with a 4. That 7 still is going to need a steak dinner and drinks, so you aren't getting off any cheaper, but at least you aren't going home with an uggo.

 

 

Fair point, though I think the detractors get why you have to overpay to keep even an average QB. The question to me is whether that is in actuality a smart move or just a desperate one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't really do it on purpose, just had to stop at some point...

 

McMahon was OK, but I'd put him more in the "game manager" category. The defense won most games for him. And as someone else said, he's no Cutler talent wise. McMahon gets remembered fondly more for his "punky QB" persona than for what he actually did on the field. And of course, for the fact that he happened to be the starting QB in the SB and most of that '85 season. I think Fuller could have started all year and they still would have won the SB.

 

Sorry but not always a game manager , he looked like the Bret Favre this night & I hated it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/85bears/regular?id=5401532

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes sense if it's a contract the Bears can get out of without much damage.

 

But I think it's silly to say, "well he's the best option we have right now", or "Trestman must know what he's doing if he wants Cutler as his QB". Coaches do have a tendency to do things to save their jobs that might not be in the best interest long-term for the organization.

 

I think it may be equally likely that he really believes in Cutler as it is that he and the GM might be worried about losing their jobs if they move on to another QB and it takes more time for success than the owners have patience with them.

 

But IMO, it should not just be treated as, well, that's the "going rate for a good QB in today's market". You either think the guy is capable of bringing you a championship or you should move on to the next guy.

 

I've actually always liked Cutler (despite his douchey apathetic demeanor), but I've not seen nearly enough indication that he's able to put all of his ability together and be a championship-caliber QB.

 

You honestly think that Trestman and Emery sat down and said "well, he's not the answer, but he might just be good enough to help us keep our jobs for 3 more years so we better sign him to save ourselves"? The idea of that is so ridiculous it is not even funny. If you have spent any time around someone whose life revolves and depends on the game of football not a single one of them would ever make that choice. They want to win, not get by. If they actually did feel that way why sign him to all that guaranteed money? Why not just franchise him and hope you can find a better option over the next 12 months? The answer is simple: they honestly feel Cutler is the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You honestly think that Trestman and Emery sat down and said "well, he's not the answer, but he might just be good enough to help us keep our jobs for 3 more years so we better sign him to save ourselves"? The idea of that is so ridiculous it is not even funny. If you have spent any time around someone whose life revolves and depends on the game of football not a single one of them would ever make that choice. They want to win, not get by. If they actually did feel that way why sign him to all that guaranteed money? Why not just franchise him and hope you can find a better option over the next 12 months? The answer is simple: they honestly feel Cutler is the answer.

 

 

Not consciously necessarily, but coaches/GMs are under tremendous pressure to win now, and one bad season, even if it brings you the answer at QB, can cost you your job before you reap the benefits.

 

So it's not a stretch at all that they subconciously fear the unknown more than they're convinced that Cutler's the answer. Same reason a person may stay at a dead end job they hate, rather than moving on to the unknown that might turn out better or worse. That doesn't mean they think that their current path is their best chance for success. It means they fear the unknown more.

 

But I'm really just spit-balling. Of course I don't know better than you do what they're thinking. I just don't see what Cutler has shown besides wasted potential to suggest that his salary can more than offset the pieces you can no longer afford and still bring you a championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately, QB's are like prom dates - if you don't have a 9, you better grab the 7's while they last, cause you don't want to get stuck with a 4. That 7 still is going to need a steak dinner and drinks, so you aren't getting off any cheaper, but at least you aren't going home with an uggo.

 

 

:lol:

 

I'm stealing this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post. Heck, they can even cut him after 2 years with a liveable dead money hit. Unfortunately, QB's are like prom dates - if you don't have a 9, you better grab the 7's while they last, cause you don't want to get stuck with a 4. That 7 still is going to need a steak dinner and drinks, so you aren't getting off any cheaper, but at least you aren't going home with an uggo.

 

 

:clap:

 

Name the 12 or 15 QBs better than Cutler? Guys like Flacco are on par with him IMO and we all know what he makes.

Culter obviously OS Trestman's guy so why draft someone and get fired developing him. Cutler is more than "good enough" IMO

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to keep him because you think he'll improve, sure. Give him a shorter, cheaper, extension and then re-evaluate to see if that's actually true. It's not like they needed to pay him this much because other teams were breaking down the door to sign him :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information