It is currently Mon Nov 25, 2024 4:24 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank Coztansa wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
The only reason I point it out is because saying the best QB in franchise history isn't really pertinent. For the thread purposes we should probably just call him the 16th best QB in the nfl today. That matters a lot more.
Packer bias aside for a moment, you are saying the Bears should bring Cutler back right?

Well that's not packers bias. Objectively speaking you can't really rank Cutler much higher than middle of the pack.

If I was Phil Emery I would not bring Cutler back.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:32 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
FavreFan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
The only reason I point it out is because saying the best QB in franchise history isn't really pertinent. For the thread purposes we should probably just call him the 16th best QB in the nfl today. That matters a lot more.
Packer bias aside for a moment, you are saying the Bears should bring Cutler back right?

Well that's not packers bias. Objectively speaking you can't really rank Cutler much higher than middle of the pack.

If I was Phil Emery I would not bring Cutler back.
So this week you are saying the Bears should not bring back the 16th best QB in the NFL, but two weeks ago you were saying that Brett Farve could come into the league and be a viable option at starting QB?

If QB play is as bad as you claim, where you are advocating that Farve could come back and start, why would any team let a QB walk who is in the top half of the league?

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72380
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank Coztansa wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
The only reason I point it out is because saying the best QB in franchise history isn't really pertinent. For the thread purposes we should probably just call him the 16th best QB in the nfl today. That matters a lot more.
Packer bias aside for a moment, you are saying the Bears should bring Cutler back right?

Well that's not packers bias. Objectively speaking you can't really rank Cutler much higher than middle of the pack.

If I was Phil Emery I would not bring Cutler back.
So this week you are saying the Bears should not bring back the 16th best QB in the NFL, but two weeks ago you were saying that Brett Farve could come into the league and be a viable option at starting QB?

If QB play is as bad as you claim, where you are advocating that Farve could come back and start, why would any team let a QB walk who is in the top half of the league?

I think Favre could still play. I don't think it would be a good idea to sign him.

If Cutler was willing to accept the fact that he is a mediocre QB and be paid accordingly, I would do it. It doesn't sound like that's an option though.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16488
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Bucky Chris wrote:
All that said, Jay was 3rd in QBR after the first 5 games.


Tuffy Rhodes was also leading MLB in homers for a while in 1994.

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
seeing just to many 1-2 year QBs starting and playing well across the NFL to be too concerned with Cutler's departure, especially with a good QB group coming in.


The only thing is they'd have to hit on their draft pick, which Emery has failed to do more often than not in his two drafts. The entire 2012 draft, outside of Jeffery, is garbage. I know you're not implying this, but the success of the QBs you mention doesn't necessarily mean the Bears will enjoy success when they take their turn at selecting a QB.
I hate this rationale. If our GM sucks then we'll suck with or without Cutler. No reason to not try and save money and/or improve the QB position because it may not work.


I respect your argument, BRick, and I know we've gone back and forth on it in a different thread. I'm not saying the Bears should keep Cutler and eschew drafting a QB because the latter is unpredictable, but I will say that holding on to Cutler and drafting a QB is a better option than going into 2014 with a rookie as the starting QB.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92079
Location: To the left of my post
veganfan21 wrote:
I respect your argument, BRick, and I know we've gone back and forth on it in a different thread. I'm not saying the Bears should keep Cutler and eschew drafting a QB because the latter is unpredictable, but I will say that holding on to Cutler and drafting a QB is a better option than going into 2014 with a rookie as the starting QB.
I think you go all in one way or the other. That may work for Christian Ponder or Sam Bradford, but Cutler is a known quantity.

The fact that virtually everyone is unwilling to state they want to keep him for another 3 years is answer enough for a QB with his experience.

If we are to believe that Trestman is a strong offensive mind I would hope he could at least do as well as offensive genius Rex Ryan has with a rookie QB.

With or without Cutler, I see trouble coming for the Bears after this year. It may already be here.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
I respect your argument, BRick, and I know we've gone back and forth on it in a different thread. I'm not saying the Bears should keep Cutler and eschew drafting a QB because the latter is unpredictable, but I will say that holding on to Cutler and drafting a QB is a better option than going into 2014 with a rookie as the starting QB.
I think you go all in one way or the other. That may work for Christian Ponder or Sam Bradford, but Cutler is a known quantity.

The fact that virtually everyone is unwilling to state they want to keep him for another 3 years is answer enough for a QB with his experience.

If we are to believe that Trestman is a strong offensive mind I would hope he could at least do as well as offensive genius Rex Ryan has with a rookie QB.

With or without Cutler, I see trouble coming for the Bears after this year. It may already be here.


When you say they could be in "trouble," I was hoping you'd make a finer distinction: are they in trouble all over the place, or on just one side of the ball? For me, it's obvious the trouble is on defense, while they have something promising going on with the offense.

Cutler may not like having what is essentially his potential replacement as a teammate, but too bad. I think it's in the Bears' interest to keep Cutler for a year while drafting a QB. Assuming Cutler returns and plays decent for the rest of the season, why not go into next year with Cutler as a starter, and knowing exactly what he can do, and seeing where that takes you? If it becomes clear that things are not going well that season, then you drop him Schaub-style and go with the rookie. Of course the best case scenario is that Cutler is the Alex Smith to the hypothetical rookie's Colin Kaepernick. The best problem to have is a competent QB on whom you can rely, and a talented backup ready to take over if the older guy gets injured or falters.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92079
Location: To the left of my post
veganfan21 wrote:
When you say they could be in "trouble," I was hoping you'd make a finer distinction: are they in trouble all over the place, or on just one side of the ball? For me, it's obvious the trouble is on defense, while they have something promising going on with the offense.
They are in trouble as a team. They have a few younger pieces to build around on offense but there are just too many bad drafts in a row to expect it to be sustainable. The Bears have stayed competitive by getting a lot of production from players that are either gone or on the way out or declining. I think you are a little bit too optimistic about the offense. It has some pieces to build around but so does pretty much every team but the Jaguars.

veganfan21 wrote:
Cutler may not like having what is essentially his potential replacement as a teammate, but too bad. I think it's in the Bears' interest to keep Cutler for a year while drafting a QB. Assuming Cutler returns and plays decent for the rest of the season, why not go into next year with Cutler as a starter, and knowing exactly what he can do, and seeing where that takes you? If it becomes clear that things are not going well that season, then you drop him Schaub-style and go with the rookie. Of course the best case scenario is that Cutler is the Alex Smith to the hypothetical rookie's Colin Kaepernick. The best problem to have is a competent QB on whom you can rely, and a talented backup ready to take over if the older guy gets injured or falters.
How much of a difference can Cutler really make? It's been pretty much established that Cutler needs a lot of talent around him to be a difference maker.

I'd rather see what a rookie QB can do which is now the norm in the NFL. I'm concerned if they franchise Cutler, that we'll have a situation where we have a coach entering his third year, and a GM entering his fourth year, and THEN we finally accept a rebuild with a new quarterback when Cutler isn't brought back after next year. Get moving going forward. The Bears aren't winning the Super Bowl this year or next year and any rationalization of "any team can win it any year" doesn't really change that thought since that means it is just as likely that they do with or without Cutler.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40650
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
I think tonight answers this question for me. I do not ever think that is should be considered to make McCown the starter etc. But if he does well in this new offense it would show me someone other than Cutler and cheaper can do this with Tresmann.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
When you say they could be in "trouble," I was hoping you'd make a finer distinction: are they in trouble all over the place, or on just one side of the ball? For me, it's obvious the trouble is on defense, while they have something promising going on with the offense.
They are in trouble as a team. They have a few younger pieces to build around on offense but there are just too many bad drafts in a row to expect it to be sustainable. The Bears have stayed competitive by getting a lot of production from players that are either gone or on the way out or declining. I think you are a little bit too optimistic about the offense. It has some pieces to build around but so does pretty much every team but the Jaguars.

veganfan21 wrote:
Cutler may not like having what is essentially his potential replacement as a teammate, but too bad. I think it's in the Bears' interest to keep Cutler for a year while drafting a QB. Assuming Cutler returns and plays decent for the rest of the season, why not go into next year with Cutler as a starter, and knowing exactly what he can do, and seeing where that takes you? If it becomes clear that things are not going well that season, then you drop him Schaub-style and go with the rookie. Of course the best case scenario is that Cutler is the Alex Smith to the hypothetical rookie's Colin Kaepernick. The best problem to have is a competent QB on whom you can rely, and a talented backup ready to take over if the older guy gets injured or falters.
How much of a difference can Cutler really make? It's been pretty much established that Cutler needs a lot of talent around him to be a difference maker.

I'd rather see what a rookie QB can do which is now the norm in the NFL. I'm concerned if they franchise Cutler, that we'll have a situation where we have a coach entering his third year, and a GM entering his fourth year, and THEN we finally accept a rebuild with a new quarterback when Cutler isn't brought back after next year. Get moving going forward. The Bears aren't winning the Super Bowl this year or next year and any rationalization of "any team can win it any year" doesn't really change that thought since that means it is just as likely that they do with or without Cutler.


Well I think they have more than just pieces to build around; they have a system in which young players like Jeffery, Mills, and Long have excelled, and when you add Forte, Bennet, and Marshall to the mix, you've got something that can be promising over the next 2-3 years.

I don't think franchising Cutler while drafting a QB means you delay an inevitable rebuilding phase. I don't even think a rebuilding of the offense is necessary. If they draft well next year, you could absolutely ask throw that rookie QB into the mix with the current offensive core and expect that they do well.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65768
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Jesus really favrefan? Favre can't still play. He couldn't still play 3 years ago.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Curious Hair, The Doctor Of Style, This Ends in Antioch and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group