Latest on McCown v. Cutler?

[wpayers]

I actually think that this is what most people are expecting to happen and that anything else is making a mistake. I can't see Cutler walking away from the Bears though. I think that the announcement that it's going to be Cutler this weekend is the correct one that the coach made. Although I think people will wonder what else McCown has to do to keep the job. It's the reverse of what happened in Green Bay, imo. The younger Rodgers takes over for the aging vet, Favre. Doing the opposite only sends the Bears back into the deep end.

 

Full disclosure, I have McCown on a fantasy team where I also have Cutler and Luck. I was hoping to start McCown but now have to decide between Cutler or Luck.

 

Kinda see your point but McCown is 34 vs. Cutler is 30. Here we have the younger Cutler taking over for the aging vet, McCown. Regardless, here is one more instance of the FF gods having fun at our expense. The playoffs at stake. McCown was gold. Cutler has burnt many of us in the past. What to expect????

 

Given your choice I'd take Luck by a curly one.

[Papajohn]

The Bears will now resign Cutler to a long term deal and be stuck where they are for the next 5 years. The rest of the NFC North must be so happy. This is what crappy organizations do.

[Company of Heroes]

Yippee. Have RG3 & McCown. Will now be playing Flacco in the 'ship.

[MikesVikes]

Kinda see your point but McCown is 34 vs. Cutler is 30. Here we have the younger Cutler taking over for the aging vet, McCown. Regardless, here is one more instance of the FF gods having fun at our expense. The playoffs at stake. McCown was gold. Cutler has burnt many of us in the past. What to expect????

 

Given your choice I'd take Luck by a curly one.

 

 

Yea I said that doing the opposite of what Green Bay did would be a mistake. Kicking out Cutler for an aging McCown would be the mistake. Reverse osmosis.

[darin3]

Yea I said that doing the opposite of what Green Bay did would be a mistake. Kicking out Cutler for an aging McCown would be the mistake. Reverse osmosis.

 

 

But they're not necessarily "kicking out Cutler". This is a different situation. Trestman can win with McCown at QB. Cutler is going to demand too much money and/or a long-term deal. Bears are OK with the longer terms but won't fork over cash that they SHOULD spend elsewhere. Not when McCown (even at 34, he doesn't have much wear on his tires... Rich Gannon?) is efficiently running the offense.

 

We'll see what happens, but I honestly could see the Bears wising up and letting Cutler walk if he's really going to be a little snot and demand more than he's really worth.

[buddahj]

Cutler, reportedly, is going to start on Sunday @ CLE.

 

Just great. It looks like I'm going to have to ride the Tannehill express.

[buddahj]

So what happens if Cutler craps the bed, the Bears lose & the Lions win?

[Wolverines Fan]

Per the National Football Post:

 

http://www.nationalf...-offseason.html

Bears likely to let Cutler walk in offseason

 

Unless quarterback is willing to take a cap-friendly deal, expect him to hit free agency.

 

Unless quarterback Jay Cutler is willing to take a club-friendly deal on his next contract, the Chicago Bears are likely to let Cutler become a free agent in the offseason, a source said Wednesday.

 

The Bears would do that even at the risk of losing him. “(The Bears) believe in (coach Marc) Trestman after what they’ve seen from (backup quarterback Josh) McCown,” the source said. “Between his system and the two big receivers (Brandon Marshall and Alshon Jeffery), you have a system where a quarterback can flourish. I don’t know if McCown is going to be the starter (next season), but I think the team would be fine letting Cutler test the market and then go draft someone if he left.”

 

The goal for the Bears is to not overpay for Cutler, who could be looking for a deal in the range of $20 million a year, particularly if the Bears put the franchise tag on him and then try to negotiate a long-term deal.

 

Chicago Genera Manager Phil Emery said last week that he was uncomfortable with the idea of using the franchise tag on a quarterback.

 

“The franchise tag for the quarterback position has unique challenges because the average comes out to be such a big portion of your cap and your total money available to spend on other players to acquire to help your team,” Emery said.

 

“With the franchise tag being so high for the quarterback position, to use it and not sign the individual to a long-term deal hurts the team because you lose the ability to prorate the amount of guaranteed salary over the length of the contract. Proration lowers the salary cap number in relation to that player's contract. Obviously the lower the number in relation to the salary cap, the more players you can sign to help your team reach its goals.”

Edited December 12, 2013 by Wolverines Fan

[MikesVikes]

But they're not necessarily "kicking out Cutler". This is a different situation. Trestman can win with McCown at QB. Cutler is going to demand too much money and/or a long-term deal. Bears are OK with the longer terms but won't fork over cash that they SHOULD spend elsewhere. Not when McCown (even at 34, he doesn't have much wear on his tires... Rich Gannon?) is efficiently running the offense.

 

We'll see what happens, but I honestly could see the Bears wising up and letting Cutler walk if he's really going to be a little snot and demand more than he's really worth.

 

 

I hope that it happens your way. Cutler can move to Minnesota. I don't like the dude, because he always looks either dis-interested or moody. But he would be a much better option than what we have now. Plus I think the Vikes have always liked him from day one.

[bud29]

Honestly I don't see why they're doing this. McCown has been pretty damn good, at least roll with him until he proves you otherwise. McCown may not be the long-term answer, but I don't think Cutler is either.

[darin3]

Honestly I don't see why they're doing this. McCown has been pretty damn good, at least roll with him until he proves you otherwise. McCown may not be the long-term answer, but I don't think Cutler is either.

 

 

It's because folks like sausageking feel that "since we paid him a crapload of coin before and he has been 'pretty good', we should pay him even MORE coin... because, ya know, that means he'll play even better!".

 

...

 

Which, of course, is a steaming pile of camel turds.

[sausagekingchi]

Per the National Football Post:

 

http://www.nationalf...-offseason.html

Bears likely to let Cutler walk in offseason

 

Unless quarterback is willing to take a cap-friendly deal, expect him to hit free agency.

 

Unless quarterback Jay Cutler is willing to take a club-friendly deal on his next contract, the Chicago Bears are likely to let Cutler become a free agent in the offseason, a source said Wednesday.

 

The Bears would do that even at the risk of losing him. “(The Bears) believe in (coach Marc) Trestman after what they’ve seen from (backup quarterback Josh) McCown,” the source said. “Between his system and the two big receivers (Brandon Marshall and Alshon Jeffery), you have a system where a quarterback can flourish. I don’t know if McCown is going to be the starter (next season), but I think the team would be fine letting Cutler test the market and then go draft someone if he left.”

 

The goal for the Bears is to not overpay for Cutler, who could be looking for a deal in the range of $20 million a year, particularly if the Bears put the franchise tag on him and then try to negotiate a long-term deal.

 

Chicago Genera Manager Phil Emery said last week that he was uncomfortable with the idea of using the franchise tag on a quarterback.

 

“The franchise tag for the quarterback position has unique challenges because the average comes out to be such a big portion of your cap and your total money available to spend on other players to acquire to help your team,” Emery said.

 

“With the franchise tag being so high for the quarterback position, to use it and not sign the individual to a long-term deal hurts the team because you lose the ability to prorate the amount of guaranteed salary over the length of the contract. Proration lowers the salary cap number in relation to that player's contract. Obviously the lower the number in relation to the salary cap, the more players you can sign to help your team reach its goals.”

 

All fo this is posturing by the Bears. This is part of the negotiation process. A "source" leaking information, Emery saying franchising a QB can be tricky (btw, he was not talking directly about Cutler, but franchising a QB in general). But as soon as Cutler was healthy enough to play they waste no time pulling McCown. If that doesn't speak volumes as to who they think makes them the better team I don't know what would. If Cutler makes them a better team in their opinion why would they let him walk? The goal is to be a team good enough to win a Super Bowl and as of this moment there is zero doubt as to who they think gives them the best chance.

[bud29]

It's because folks like sausageking feel that "since we paid him a crapload of coin before and he has been 'pretty good', we should pay him even MORE coin... because, ya know, that means he'll play even better!".

 

 

Well, it's true, just ask the Cowboys. They're already over $30 million in next year's cap but look at how good they are!

[stevegrab]

It's because folks like sausageking feel that "since we paid him a crapload of coin before and he has been 'pretty good', we should pay him even MORE coin... because, ya know, that means he'll play even better!".

 

...

 

Which, of course, is a steaming pile of camel turds.

 

I find all this talk quite amusing. Everybody is so sure Cutler isn't the answer, will demand too much money, and blah-blah-blah.

 

Its simple really, starters who get injured return to their starting job when they are healthy. Just because the team has been winning with McCown doesn't mean he keeps playing when Cutler is heathy. What they do in the future is a whole different discussion (but I suspect they want to keep Cutler, not the older journeman backup).

 

I really don't get all the hate for Cutler, too many people let their personal feelings affect their perceptions.

 

PS As for that article Wolverine Fan posted, that is some writer;s opinion, not a press release from the bears. It contains contain the usually bogus/vague "a source tell us" part. That source could be the janitor. Sports talk, plain garbage eaten up by legions of people for some reason.

Edited December 12, 2013 by stevegrab

[sausagekingchi]

It's because folks like sausageking feel that "since we paid him a crapload of coin before and he has been 'pretty good', we should pay him even MORE coin... because, ya know, that means he'll play even better!".

 

...

 

Which, of course, is a steaming pile of camel turds.

 

Not quite as big a steaming pile as your assumption is about how I feel. I'm not sure how you even got to that conclusion. I actually said earlier in the thread I don't know if Cutler is the answer, but I do know that no thinks McCown is except for some fans.

[bud29]

Its simple really, starters who get injured return to their starting job when they are healthy. Just because the team has been winning with McCown doesn't mean he keeps playing when Cutler is heathy. What they do in the future is a whole different discussion (but I suspect they want to keep Cutler, not the older journeman backup).

 

 

The thing is, though, McCown hasn't just been putting up mediocre numbers while sliding by opponents. He has been winning AND his stats beat Cutler's by a solid margin. An 11:1 TD:INT ratio is quite a bit better than 13:8. I understand that his opponents have not been incredibly tough, but still, I would at least stick with him until he cools off.

[Papajohn]

Its simple really, starters who get injured return to their starting job when they are healthy.

 

 

Not this old song and dance again.

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

The Vikes will sign Cutler if they cut him

[Big John]

 

Its simple really, starters who get injured return to their starting job when they are healthy. Just because the team has been winning with McCown doesn't mean he keeps playing when Cutler is heathy. What they do in the future is a whole different discussion (but I suspect they want to keep Cutler, not the older journeman backup).

 

 

Tell that to Don Majikowski or Drew Bledsoe.

[buddahj]

 

Tell that to Don Majikowski or Drew Bledsoe.

 

good call

[darin3]

I find all this talk quite amusing. Everybody is so sure Cutler isn't the answer, will demand too much money, and blah-blah-blah.

 

Its simple really, starters who get injured return to their starting job when they are healthy. Just because the team has been winning with McCown doesn't mean he keeps playing when Cutler is heathy. What they do in the future is a whole different discussion (but I suspect they want to keep Cutler, not the older journeman backup).

 

I really don't get all the hate for Cutler, too many people let their personal feelings affect their perceptions.

 

PS As for that article Wolverine Fan posted, that is some writer;s opinion, not a press release from the bears. It contains contain the usually bogus/vague "a source tell us" part. That source could be the janitor. Sports talk, plain garbage eaten up by legions of people for some reason.

 

 

Uh, where exactly am I talking about benching Cutler this week and for the rest of the season? I'm talking about resigning him.

 

I find your reading comprehension amusing.

Edited December 12, 2013 by darin3

[darin3]

Not quite as big a steaming pile as your assumption is about how I feel. I'm not sure how you even got to that conclusion. I actually said earlier in the thread I don't know if Cutler is the answer, but I do know that no thinks McCown is except for some fans.

 

 

From your posts in this and other threads, you seem pretty convinced that Cutler should be resigned. If I misinterpreted your pretty blatant statements, then my bad... I guess.

[MikesVikes]

It's because folks like sausageking feel that "since we paid him a crapload of coin before and he has been 'pretty good', we should pay him even MORE coin... because, ya know, that means he'll play even better!".

 

...

 

Which, of course, is a steaming pile of camel turds.

 

 

Seems like every time a WR gets paid, they have a bad year. Not sure about QBs.

[darin3]

Seems like every time a WR gets paid, they have a bad year. Not sure about QBs.

 

 

If a an above average primadonna WR on a team built on defense and running the football was in his contract year, played better than average, then got hurt and his replacement put up equal if not better numbers, I would be fine with letting said WR find another suitor in the offseason and would spend my money elsewhere.

 

Edit - Just to be clear. The statement above is in relation to the fact that in Trestman's offense, you don't really need a "big name" QB. An efficient/accurate passer with a decent head on his shoulders will get the job done. Especially when you have two hugh, physical WRs, a decent TE and quite possibly the game's best pass-catching back.

Edited December 12, 2013 by darin3

[sausagekingchi]

From your posts in this and other threads, you seem pretty convinced that Cutler should be resigned. If I misinterpreted your pretty blatant statements, then my bad... I guess.

 

Someone here does indeed have a reading comprehension problem. How does me saying I think the smart BUSINESS MOVE for the Bears is to resign Cutler lead you to this statement: since we paid him a crapload of coin before and he has been 'pretty good', we should pay him even MORE coin... because, ya know, that means he'll play even better!".