Do not resign Cutler unless...

veganfan21 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:37 pm

badrogue17 wrote:

24_Guy wrote:

I don't know if we need 9 more pages or not, but, if you still think after yesterday that McCown moves this team down the field just fine, I don't know what more to say.

You don't like Cutler's picks? How about McCown's two horrible, horrible picks early on that were luckily called back due to penalties? How about the shovel pass lying on his belly? How anyone can blissfully overlook all that with McCown, and then use similar evidence as an indictment against Cutler, defies all logic.

The Bears haven't converted 3rd in long since forever, as was pointed out statistically in the broadcast yesterday. They've gone from one of the top teams at converting TDs in the red zone to one of the worst. They were losing 7-6 at halftime against one of the worst three pass defenses in the league.

But sure, McCown moves the ball great. If QBR says he's the second best QB in the league, then great, get an NFL team and sign him. Have fun.

So is your argument that Jay would be shredding these bad defenses with lazer like precision ? I believe there's enough evidence out there to show that's not the case when he's had the chance to light it up. Like you said though if you believe he would then theres not much to talk about.

24guy: I don't think it's so much McCown vs Cutler. McCown is basically a generic QB whose production is evidence that there can be life after Cutler. He's just a stand in for someone else who could build upon what McCown has done and display much more upside, and perhaps better results.

24_Guy · **Joined:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm **Posts:** 1678

badrogue17 wrote:

So is your argument that Jay would be shredding these bad defenses with lazer like precision ? I believe there's enough evidence out there to show that's not the case when he's had the chance to light it up. Like you said though if you believe he would then theres not much to talk about.

Cutler has flaws too, obviously. Last week when the Rams hung 42 on the board, that's tough. But I have little doubt Cutler would have put up more than 20 yesterday against that team.

veganfan21 wrote:

24guy: I don't think it's so much McCown vs Cutler. McCown is basically a generic QB whose production is evidence that there can be life after Cutler. He's just a stand in for someone else who could build upon what McCown has done and display much more upside, and perhaps better results.

Well my argument is against those that say McCown looks better than Cutler in this offense (or any offense). He doesn't. When you say build on what McCown has done, do you mean the same style? It's Orton-ball. It's moving the chains inside the 20s, but unable to score in the red zone and unable to convert 3rd downs. We've seen this movie. I don't want a better McCown, I want a better Cutler.

Brick · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:29 pm

24_Guy wrote:

You don't like Cutler's picks? How about McCown's two horrible, horrible picks early on that were luckily called back due to penalties? How about the shovel pass lying on his belly? How anyone can blissfully overlook all that with McCown, and then use similar evidence as an indictment against Cutler, defies all logic.

Didn't you say that if you aren't throwing picks then you aren't making NFL throws? Right back at you.

24_Guy wrote:

But sure, McCown moves the ball great. If QBR says he's the second best QB in the league, then great, get an NFL team and sign him. Have fun.

No. McCown sucks. Jay just isn't that good either. This is proving it.

Move on from both. Keep McCown to start the first few games next year. A rookie could come in and play as well as either since we all know that most first round rookies will be as good or better than McCown.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:32 pm

In regards to McCown picks that didn't count.

They didn't count!

badrogue17 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 6:47 pm

24_Guy wrote:

badrogue17 wrote:

So is your argument that Jay would be shredding these bad defenses with lazer like precision ? I believe there's enough evidence out there to show that's not the case when he's had the chance to light it up. Like you said though if you believe he would then theres not much to talk about.

Cutler has flaws too, obviously. Last week when the Rams hung 42 on the board, that's tough. But I have little doubt Cutler would have put up more than 20 yesterday against that team.

And I have little doubt there would have been more turnovers from Cutler resulting in more points scored against the Bears. Its a wash.

Nas · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:58 pm

24_Guy wrote:

I don't know if we need 9 more pages or not, but, if you still think after yesterday that McCown moves this team down the field just fine, I don't know what more to say.

You don't like Cutler's picks? How about McCown's two horrible, horrible picks early on that were luckily called back due to penalties? How about the shovel pass lying on his belly? How anyone can blissfully overlook all that with McCown, and then use similar evidence as an indictment against Cutler, defies all logic.

The Bears haven't converted 3rd in long since forever, as was pointed out statistically in the broadcast yesterday. They've gone from one of the top teams at converting TDs in the red zone to one of the worst. They were losing 7-6 at halftime against one of the worst three pass defenses in the league.

But sure, McCown moves the ball great. If QBR says he's the second best QB in the league, then great, get an NFL team and sign him. Have fun.

Is this a bit? What throw didn't McCown make yesterday? What pass would Cutler have made that was better yesterday?

The Bears defense was a lot better earlier in the season than they are now. They scored points and set the offense up in good field position earlier in the season. Even with that assistance McCown has scored on more possessions than Cutler even when you include those bad 4th and 1 calls by Trestman.

Since the defense is all time bad now Cutler definitely isn't the best guy for the job. He has 13 touchdown and 11 turnovers on the season. Can you imagine how bad things could get if you gave the defense bad field position? McCown has 9 touchdowns and 2 turnovers. McCown has more long drives this year than Cutler probably has his entire time as a Bear. This actually helps because it keeps the defense off the field.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:03 pm

If Cutler is able to comeback,I would start him. I'm a big McCown supporter,but Cutler needs to show the Bears he is worth big money going in to next season. What McCown has been doing is not because of the great game plan that anyone could execute. You need a guy that can make those throws,he has!

Nas · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:07 pm

There is nothing Cutler can do to show he is worth the money because he isn't

24_Guy · **Joined:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm **Posts:** 1678

Nas wrote:

What throw didn't McCown make yesterday? What pass would Cutler have made that was better yesterday?

One like this one would have been nice:

http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/videos/NFLN_Marshalls_32yard_TD/7eebacfe-0e1b-4717-b6bf-d4881cfe1b08

24_Guy · **Joined:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm **Posts:** 1678

Something like this would have been welcome as well.

http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/videos/NLFN_Brandon_Marshalls_44yard_catch/2ee662c4-127b-49fa-bde0-b07b0d21d2f9

Darkside · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:48 pm

McCown was not why the Bears lost that game.

In my opinion, the only reason you kick a 47 yard field goal on any less than 4th down is if there is 1 second on the clock.
That's it.
No other reason is even fathomable.

badrogue17 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:57 pm

Ill go as far to say that yes the Bears need to score points . Ill also say that there's no guarantee that Cutler puts those points on the board and in fact there's a greater likelihood he gives the opposition more points by virtue of his own turnovers .

24_Guy · **Joined:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm **Posts:** 1678

Darkside wrote:

McCown was not why the Bears lost that game.

I don't want to drag you into this tempest I'm creating every week, but, why can't you look at McCown? The Vikings gave up 26 points the week before, to the damn Packers who can't get out of their own way without Rodgers. The week before they gave up 41. The week before that they gave up 27 to Washington. They are 30th in passing yards given up, and 32nd in passing TDs given up. The Bears D held them to 7, and you go into halftime losing 7-6. You score nothing in the 4th quarter. So why can't we look at McCown?

Darkside wrote:

In my opinion, the only reason you kick a 47 yard field goal on any less than 4th down is if there is 1 second on the clock.
That's it.
No other reason is even fathomable.

I would not have kicked it there. But, what is Gould's percentage from there, and then add on points for being in a dome.

Now, how much do the percentages go up if you gain 5 more yards? It can't be that much. The Bears short yardage game has been beyond shitty. Or, were you willing to pass the ball at that point to gain more yards?

The refs were throwing flags on every other play in the later stages of that game. They flagged Bushrod for dropping the ball when he couldn't find a ref, for God's sake. If you run a play on 2nd down and the ref spots someone's glancing brush against a jersey, you're now out of FG range.

I don't support the decision, but there is some logic to it.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:05 pm

I think if the Bears get 9 yards closer,his FG % goes up from 72% to 88%. I heard that from Speigs today.

24_Guy · **Joined:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm **Posts:** 1678

jimmypasta wrote:

I think if the Bears get 9 yards closer,his FG % goes up from 72% to 88%. I heard that from Speigs today.

No way that's right. That has to be considering ranges, meaning, 9 yards would put him on the very outside of a range that he hits 88%, but, from the back end of that range it's got to be less than from the front of that range. No way 9 yards is THAT big of a difference. And anyway, how would you get 9 yards unless you were willing to throw it?

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:12 pm

24_Guy wrote:

jimmypasta wrote:

I think if the Bears get 9 yards closer,his FG % goes up from 72% to 88%. I heard that from Speigs today.

No way that's right. That has to be considering ranges, meaning, 9 yards would put him on the very outside of a range that he hits 88%, but, from the back end of that range it's got to be less than from the front of that range. No way 9 yards is THAT big of a difference. And anyway, how would you get 9 yards unless you were willing to throw it?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... drob01.htm

Follow the above link for ACTUAL STATS!

Darkside · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:12 pm

24_Guy wrote:

jimmypasta wrote:

I think if the Bears get 9 yards closer,his FG % goes up from 72% to 88%. I heard that from Speigs today.

No way that's right. That has to be considering ranges, meaning, 9 yards would put him on the very outside of a range that he hits 88%, but, from the back end of that range it's got to be less than from the front of that range. No way 9 yards is THAT big of a difference. And anyway, how would you get 9 yards unless you were willing to throw it?

Mr. offensive genius should have no problem getting 4.5 yards a play.
Dude it was 2nd down on a kick distance that 2 years ago Lovie might just punt from. No shit.

24_Guy · **Joined:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm **Posts:** 1678

jimmypasta wrote:

24_Guy wrote:

jimmypasta wrote:

I think if the Bears get 9 yards closer,his FG % goes up from 72% to 88%. I heard that from Speigs today.

No way that's right. That has to be considering ranges, meaning, 9 yards would put him on the very outside of a range that he hits 88%, but, from the back end of that range it's got to be less than from the front of that range. No way 9 yards is THAT big of a difference. And anyway, how would you get 9 yards unless you were willing to throw it?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... drob01.htm

Follow the above link for ACTUAL STATS!

Right, it's 9 yards to get into the 30-39 range. I doubt he's as accurate from 39 as he is from 30. 88% is for that entire range, not just from 39.

Darkside wrote:

Mr. offensive genius should have no problem getting 4.5 yards a play.
Dude it was 2nd down on a kick distance that 2 years ago Lovie might just punt from. No shit.

I know. Just saying from an odds perspective, there are odds for things going bad on offense (which they largely were in the 4th qtr and OT) vs the odds of Gould making the kick. But agreed, kicking would not have been my decision.

Darkside · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:27 pm

24_Guy wrote:

I know. Just saying from an odds perspective, there are odds for things going bad on offense (which they largely were in the 4th qtr and OT) vs the odds of Gould making the kick. But agreed, kicking would not have been my decision.

Well when you figure those odds, please weigh them against getting a first down at 2nd a 7.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:29 pm

What hurts is outside of Jeffrie knocking a possible INT out of the defenders hands,those Vike CB's were outmatched all day. I can't believe McCown couldn't have hit a couple of more throws in there.

Nas · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:36 pm

Forte had gained over 20 yards that possession on like 4 carries. Feed the hot hand.

Darkside · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:42 pm

So Nas seems to be in the "why the everloving fuck do you kick a 47 yard fg on 2nd down" camp too.
Like everyone.
This is a fire-able offense if you ask me.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:46 pm

Darkside wrote:

So Nas seems to be in the "why the everloving fuck do you kick a 47 yard fg on 2nd down" camp too.
Like everyone.
This is a fire-able offense if you ask me.

I was thinking the same thing. Add it up with the rest of his coaching screw-ups like starting Cutler against Detroit and some other shit I can't recall.

He wouldn't be the first one & done.

Darkside · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:49 pm

Honestly he did nice things with the offense, on a limited scale (I.E. Terrible special teams work, questionable decisionmaking on 4th down and apparently 2nd down), but his decision making from kicking that damn FG to that very questionable 4th down and goal with Forte and Marshall out of th3e play, and the unreal decay of the defense says this dude might be in over his head.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:53 pm

viewtopic.php?f=72&t=83505&p=1868080#p1868080

Bring that guy in!

24_Guy · **Joined:** Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:43 pm **Posts:** 1678

Fireable offence? One and done? Granted it's been a rough few weeks here, but at least give him a chance to learn from these mistakes. He's shown enough offensive knowledge to not let him go so easily.

jimmypasta · **Posted:** Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:45 am

24_Guy wrote:

Fireable offence? One and done? Granted it's been a rough few weeks here, but at least give him a chance to learn from these mistakes. He's shown enough offensive knowledge to not let him go so easily.

A Head Coach should not be costing a team games based on poor strategy. This guy has made a few whoppers. I think the Bears should have the GM & HC on a real short leash.

Scorehead · **Posted:** Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:15 am

I'm a big Tresty fan, but kicking from the 47 on 2nd down is one of the dumbest coaching decisions that I have ever seen, & I said so before the kick. Who the fuck wants to kick a 47 yard field goal when your Running Back just shredded the Defense repeatedly? All great head coaches have cost their teams games, but this game was tough to lose.

Frank Coztansa · **Posted:** Tue Dec 03, 2013 8:38 am

24_Guy wrote:

I doubt he's as accurate from 39 as he is from 30. 88% is for that entire range, not just from 39.

Indoors. Given that, he'd better at least at 88%.

Hatchetman · **Posted:** Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:13 am

all their people with their stats that they don't understand. What are the chances they get another ten yards? It's not 100%.

72% vs 88% means nothing. it tells you nothing. that wasn't the choice. It was 72% versus a chance to make it 88%.

Do not resign Cutler unless...

Who is online