Nas wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
I acknowledge that I was a Cutler apologist for many years. I just don't understand what it is that people see in him anymore. I'm a big numbers guy, normally, but I don't need them to evaluate him. I've watched him for years, hoping for the best, and I get the same results... the offense manages big plays to big play receivers occasionally but is stagnant the great majority of the time. Offenses in today's NFL rely on timing and rhythm. Defensive athletes are elite. The days of John Elway and the big play QB are no more. Defenses in today's NFL are also predicated on turnovers, which - I think we all know - Jay struggles with. The rules favor quick, timing offenses. Jay Cutler will never be elite in this league. Josh Mccown will never win you a Super Bowl. But neither will Jay Cutler. At this point, any critique of McCown is also an indictment on Cutler. The only theory in this thread regarding Cutler that gives me any optimism for Cutler is that he is new to this offense. However, when I critically analyze, he is having the same problems he had in any offense.
With that said, I think people are overvaluing the franchise tag. It's only a one-year deal. The money in most contracts is primarily detrimental in the latter years. I am OK with a franchise as long as the Bears draft a competent replacement who is a rhythm passer with an above average arm. I think that's realistic.
It is 1 year. ALL of that money hits the cap that season. There are no truly guaranteed contracts in the NFL besides franchising a guy. If you gave Cutler a back loaded contract you could cut him after the first season and not have to pay the rest. You should NOT franchise Cutler for any reason unless he happens to come back and lead the Bears to a SB or deep playoff run.
I'm aware of how NFL contracts are structured. In reality, most of them have a lot of guaranteed money. Also, to cut a semi-competent player for cap reasons is not often as easy as it seems. Teams are aware players are overpaid but cannot cut them because the alternative is much, much worse. Julius Peppers will soon be a good example of this.
To make an informed decision on the franchise tag is something we would all need to see the Bears' financials to determine. If there is room and you want to at least compete for the playoffs next year, Cutler is likely one of your best options. If Emery can seriously find defensive pieces that make them a contender even with a less-than-average QB, then by all means, sign a rookie and let him start immediately. But let's not get carried away with what McCown has done. He has looked better than Cutler this year (IMO), and Cutler is NOT a franchise QB, but McCown will show his deficiencies very soon once he faces elite, prepared defenses. Agreeing that McCown has looked good in this offense and Cutler is a disappointment are not equal to saying that the Bears can move forward with a below average QB in the future. Trestman's offense lends itself to a timing QB who makes good decisions, but his offense does not, nor does any offense, work with a QB who is consistently outmatched in terms of talent (McCown). Nor does it lend itself to a QB who is outmatched in terms of decision-making (Cutler). The truth is somewhere in the middle. Neither Cutler nor McCown is the long-term answer, but Cutler is probably the best short-term answer if we truly want to compete. If we want to say fuck it and rebuild, that is another story. May as well just start a rookie next year.
_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
With that breakdown of each of Cutler's games this season,it's hard not to argue EXCEPT you have to look at his career with the Bears during seasons he had no Marshall,O-Line,etc . His numbers are decent and when healthy,he is a nice weapon to have. I would franchise him depending only on if they have enough left over money to get some defense.
