StrangeSox

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:37 AM) Why do you keep focusing on two plays out of 69 snaps on offense? We can all easily find at minimum two poor decisions in each of Cutler's games. Because those two plays were really dumb decisions/bad throws that don't show up on the stat sheet. That the DB's happened to drop the ball doesn't make those decisions any better, so if we're talking about a player being "smart" with the ball, that needs to be taken into consideration. If those two balls are picked, which they easily could have been, there's not so much ridiculous talk about dumping Cutler and sticking with a journeyman QB who was out of the NFL.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) Based on Jay having the first few games and McCown coming in against mostly cupcakes? No thanks, I dont buy it. I think its funny that we finally have a system for our franchise level QB and now people are clamoring for the backup. who by all accounts was out of football a year ago. Most Bears fans have a deep, subconscious desire to want a mediocre QB and to always, always root for the backup. It's all they know from decades of suffering.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:24 AM) McCown has only faced one defense ranked higher than 21st. That was the Ravens in the rain and mud. They are rated that low because McCown shredded them and destroyed their mental confidence for the entire season! Even retroactively!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:29 AM) This system isn't designed for the deep ball, so that skill is nice but unnecessary. What system doesn't have deep passes as an important play or at least important to be a credible threat? You're not following. The entire offense didn't have time to adjust to the new system. The entire rest of the offense has kept playing, even with Cutler down. Everyone else on the field is more experienced in that offense. The two rookie linemen have gained immensely valuable experience. Alshon Jeffrey has gone from being a pretty good developing WR2 to a highlight reel machine. That's all really independent of Cutler or McCown personally having experience with the system. McCown has performed pretty well so far. "Immensely" better? No, not really, and he's not putting up any more points than Cutler was.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:28 AM) I wasn't talking about him relative to Cutler. I was talking about him relative to being a fluke. McCown being smarter with the ball keeps being a big selling point for him, so we should actually look at the decisions he's making, not just the outcomes. Yesterday, he made two really dumb decisions (or bad throws) that thankfully were dropped, but they were still not smart plays on his part. Let's see some evidence that McCown really is smarter with the ball, and that the difference is big enough to make up for the clearly inferior physical talents.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:20 AM) So McCown can't go from journeyman 77 QB rating guy to 109 qb rating guy, but Cutler is going to go from an 85 qb rating to something significantly higher than 110? The risk isn't that huge at all. Yes, the risk of dumping a franchise QB in favor of a journeyman having a good half season and betting he'll put up similar numbers next year is huge. I don't think McCown's 109 is sustainable, especially as the league gets more footage on him and Trestman's system. If you actually think McCown would continue to put up 100+ QB ratings through another full year, you're delusional. I don't think Cutler is a Top-3 or Top-4 QB, so don't pretend anyone is comparing him to Rodgers or Manning or Brees. I do think he's substantially better than a career journeyman who was coaching HS football fairly recently. What are the defensive FA's you think the Bears should be spending money on, anyway? Will the defense be substantially better? Will it be better enough to matter in the NFL in 2014, which is a hugely passing offense-oriented game?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:20 AM) That happens. Jay does this every week too, basically. Yes, every QB has those. But if we're going to talk about how much smarter with the ball McCown is, we need to look at the decisions he's making with it. Whether or not the DB catches the ball that's thrown right at him doesn't tell us whether the QB made a good decision to throw it there.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:18 AM) Cutler in his first go round in this offense had some really really good games. I want to see him with this offense in year 2, badly. Yeah, that remains a very important part of the equation. We're looking at how Cutler and the offense performed in the first few weeks with a brand new system versus how McCown has performed as the rest of the offensive unit learns that system more and more. There are a lot of throws that Cutler can make and McCown can't. That's basic, objective fact. I really find it hard to believe that anyone truly thinks this offense isn't better with an objectively better QB who is a real threat deep.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:16 AM) It's been 7 games. This isn't a crapshoot. Seven games is a very small sample. It's a complete crapshoot to believe that McCown will continue to put up 100+ QB ratings for the rest of this season and then into next year.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:15 AM) They could have easily lost a couple more games earlier in the season when Cutler was starting. They had a couple of nail-biter, come from behind victories with him under center. Ok? But they won those games, and we're talking about whether McCown is 'smarter' with the ball, because that's one of his big selling points. Yeah, he's limited the turnovers pretty well, but you can't overlook things like his bad, should-have-been-picked throws last night. Obviously Cutler has those as well, but McCown's gotten lucky a few times on bad throws. His numbers wouldn't look as hot without that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:13 AM) I'm not suggesting that McCown is a pro bowler or that we should expect that next year. I'm saying that I see a slight upgrade from Cutler to McCown in this system and with all of these weapons. It makes little sense to spend an extra 12-14 million a year on Cutler for that slight upgrade when the defense is so awful. I don't agree that it's only a "slight" upgrade. It makes even less sense in the NFL in 2013 or 2014 to let a franchise QB walk, replacing him with a 35 year old journeyman who's had a good half-season. The risk you're taking there is huge.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:11 AM) Not arguing we let Cutler walk, but McCown's passes are accurate and he makes good decisions. He's also pretty darn athletic. Yes, he's 34, but he doesn't have the mileage on him that a normal 34 year old NFL qb has. It doesn't look like a fluke to me at all. he had two really dumb throws yesterday that was just luck/painfully cold that they were dropped.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:10 AM) A ton? Come on. I don't think the offense can get much better than it is right now. They're the 2nd highest scoring team in the league. They have weapons all over the field. I think at best Cutler can be as good as McCown these last 7 games. Maybe slightly better, but at what point is that just a waste of resources? The offense can be the best in the league. Cutler could become the next Manning. If the defense still sucks, it's all for naught. They put up 20 points against the Vikings. What about the modern NFL says it's a good idea to handicap your offense to go after defensive FA's?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:07 AM) The Bears have one of the worst defenses in football right now. How do you address that if you have to dump a ton of money on a QB that's up and down and relatively injury prone? What part of the modern NFL screams "dump your QB for an old journeyman/rookie crapshoot to marginally improve your defense"? If the Bears could have picked up a yard on two tries last week, they'd be sitting on 8-5 and on top of their division right now even with their horrible defense. Why would you want to knee-cap your offense when you finally have great WRs, a good RB and a serviceable-and-improving line? I honestly don't know, is there some great free agent class coming next year on the defensive side of the ball.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:06 AM) I ask again, how much better can Cutler play than McCown right now? Substantially. McCown has been putting up a ton of yards, but outside of last night, they've struggled to score points and have lost games because of it. McCown simply cannot make some of the throws that Cutler can, whether it's a deep pass or a pass that needs to be on a rope. And let's not pretend the McCown has been mistake-free, either. There were two easy, easy picks last night that the Cowboys dropped.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 11:03 AM) Because Trestman has more confidence in McCown to call plays and run the offense. Its pretty clear that Cutler is on a tighter leash, which is kind of ironic as hes the "starter". But in a Trestman style system, sometimes brains beat brawn. I'd really like to see some evidence of this versus the playbook expanding as the whole offensive unit gets more familiar with a brand new system.

Anyone advocating dumping Cutler for a stop-gap in McCown and drafting a QB late in the first round is insane. We finally have an offense full of talented players, and you want to rely on a journeyman QB who's playing the best he's ever played but is in his mid-30's or a rookie late-1st QB?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 10, 2013 -> 10:02 AM) All I know is I think Josh uses the weapons in this offense better than Jay, primarily because he doesn't focus on Marshall so much. In Jay's defense, he had to rely on Marshall so much in the past that it's probably just habit to focus on him on almost every passing route. I'd like to see Jay get a chance to exploit defenses with his new toys a bit more before I really feel like we will know what we have here. Jay was throwing to Marshall much less this year before he got injured.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 8, 2013 -> 12:13 AM) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...tics/?hpt=hp_t3 GOP like Duke have been flaming Newt and Ted Cruz for their positive tributes to Mandela. Well Newt has responded to said critics: Well said, Newt. (first time I've ever said that) This isn't just opportunism for Newt, either. He supported Mandela and the sanctions against SA back in the 1980's as well. It's a good reminder that virtually no one is universally good or universally bad.

Orton!

QUOTE (Boogua @ Dec 9, 2013 -> 09:31 PM) I'd rate the line with Tait, Kreutz, Brown, and Miller as better for sure. This line is definitely the best in a while though. Still not great though, given their typical short yardage performance

Great stop right there

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 9, 2013 -> 09:24 PM) A bit higher and that's a td A bit lower and that's a td

How do you defend Marshall plus Jeffrey, it is not possible

Unbelievable