When the Bulls got Wallace, I was pumped. But not to this extent..

I think the excitement level is really attached to the possibilities that Cutler gives the Bears. Chicago doesn't know what a franchise QB looks like, and now that we have one it makes us believe everything about our team will become exponentially better.

 

I think you'll expectations become a little bit more reasonable by the time the season starts, but right now people have to realize that Jay Cutler alone is not going to win us Superbowls. The Broncos didn't even make the playoffs last year.

 

Because they had a pop-warner defense.

 

We have the advantage of a better D and RB over the Broncos, while they dust us in WR. If we pick up a decent WR we will be loads better than Denver was just because of the D and RB.

Because they had a pop-warner defense.

 

We have the advantage of a better D and RB over the Broncos, while they dust us in WR. If we pick up a decent WR we will be loads better than Denver was just because of the D and RB.

 

The Bears also have 2(actually 3 if you count Kellen Davis) quality Tight Ends, so Cutler still has places to throw the ball besides Forte. I think Cutler will excel in a split TE formation

When his defense gives up 21 points or less, he is 13 - 1 as a starter.

 

The reason I do not like that stat.......how many times did the defense give up more than 21 points becasue of Cutler mistakes. 1 int resulting in 7 points can result in that stat being blown.

The reason I do not like that stat.......how many times did the defense give up more than 21 points becasue of Cutler mistakes. 1 int resulting in 7 points can result in that stat being blown.

This just becomes statistical noise, you can do that with any stat. An INT that hits a WR on the hands and bounces off into a DB's hands is still an INT even if it wasn't the QB's fault. The takeaway from that stat is that Denver's defense was one of the worst in the NFL, and any QB would struggle winning with that.

I think Boers and Bernstein were correct when they said we were all in shock. No one in this city knows what a franshise QB looksl like.

I think Boers and Bernstein were correct when they said we were all in shock. No one in this city knows what a franshise QB looksl like.

 

We know what they look like, they just don't wear Bears jersies.

This is bigger than all those combined to me.

You just said this was bigger than the Bears getting to the Super Bowl in 06.

 

You are now not allowed to post in this thread.

You just said this was bigger than the Bears getting to the Super Bowl in 06.

 

You are now not allowed to post in this thread.

 

I seriously meant bigger than all those moves combined. although, Perdue for Rodman kicked ass.

Not to respark the "who got the better end of the deal" but I got into this discussion with a buddy of mine (Philly fan) over the weekend. That led me to look up some articles. Some interesting facts:

 

1) After 5-10 years, about 44% of first round picks are out of the league entirely for one reason for another [1]. Almost 50% are starters at that point and 40% make a pro bowl. Thus, it's as likely that a first round pick busts out as they have a pro bowl season.

2) From 1992-2001, 19 quarterbacks were taken with a first round pick [2]. In a rough ranking of productivity with their drafting team from best to worst they are: Peyton Manning, McNabb, Bledsoe, Steve McNair, Culpepper, Vick, Pennington, Mirer (Seahawks, this high since he got them the walter jones pick back), Dave Brown (Giants), Kerry Collins (Panthers), Trent Dilfer (Bucs), Drunkenmiller, David Klinger (Bengals), Heath Shuler (Redskins), Couch, Akili Smith, Cade McNown, Maddox (Broncos), Leaf. I think you can safely say that 12/19 (63%) busted with their original team. Of that list, Manning and McNabb made the Pro Bowl twice in their first three years. Bledsoe, Culpepper, and Vick all made it once in their first three years. So over that period, 5/19 (26%) had a first three years close to Cutler's.

 

I don't think there is any question of Cutler's ability. I think his only chance of "busting" in Chicago is the "head case scenario" (doesn't mesh with the city, staff, organization, etc). I think that at worst that's 5% likely. Oh, and 5% for a very bad, career altering injury. The other 90% is that he varies from an above average to pro-bowl quality QB for a 5-6 year period.

 

Based on the above information, here is how I see the trade scenario. I will, for sake of argument, assume the Broncos use the two Bears draft picks to select a QB and a player at a different position.

 

Ways the Broncos win:

1) Cutler busts AND they get at least one starting quality player out of the two draft picks. Based on the above math, this is ~8% (10%*(100%-50%*36%)) likely.

2) Cutler does not bust AND the Broncos get at least a starting quality QB AND the Broncos get a pro bowl quality player ~14% (90%*36%*44%).

 

Ways the Broncos and Bears tie:

1) Cutler does not bust AND the Broncos get a pro-bowl quality QB AND the Broncos other pick busts ~14% (90%*32%*44%). You could also argue this to be a win for the Bears, since they get the pro-bowl quality QB immediate and the Broncos will have to develop him.

2) Cutler does not bust AND the Broncos get a starting quality QB and other player ~0.5% (90%*5%*10%)

3) Cutler busts AND the Broncos two picks bust ~3% (10%*63%*44%).

 

Ways the Bears win:

1) Cutler does not bust AND the Broncos draft a bust QB ~58% (90%*63%).

2) Cutler does not bust AND the Broncos pick a starter level QB and their other pick busts ~2% (90%*5%*44%).

 

Obviously the math is a b**** rough since the probabilities are estimated, but when you weigh the likely outcomes I think it points that the most likely scenario is that the Bears come out ahead.

 

[1] http://bleacherreport.com/articles/74206-w...dds-for-success

[2] http://sports.espn.go.com/nfldraft/story?id=1539344

Cutler dude... I still cant believe we got Cutler.

 

Awesome.

Cutler dude... I still cant believe we got Cutler.

 

Awesome.

Yes.

The way Lovie talked about Tory Holt yesterday, leads me to believe we have or are talking to him and the Bears may just sign him.

The way Lovie talked about Tory Holt yesterday, leads me to believe we have or are talking to him and the Bears may just sign him.

oh really? I didnt know Lovie talked yesterday. To tell!

What did Lovie say about Holt?

What did Lovie say about Holt?

 

Saying he had a good relationship with him and that he is one of the many receivers available they are looking at and liked working with him in St. Louis, even though they weren't on the same side of the ball.

 

It was more of his tone and demeanor that led me to believe they are talking to Holt. Was really up, not the usual monotonous Lovie.

Saying he had a good relationship with him and that he is one of the many receivers available they are looking at and liked working with him in St. Louis, even though they weren't on the same side of the ball.

 

It was more of his tone and demeanor that led me to believe they are talking to Holt. Was really up, not the usual monotonous Lovie.

DUH! *smacks head* I forgot they were together in St. Louis. That could help.

Pace is now lobbying for the Bears to get Holt. The Bears offer the best QB out of the teams competing for Holt and the most familiarity. He'll be a Bear, book it.

Pace is now lobbying for the Bears to get Holt. The Bears offer the best QB out of the teams competing for Holt and the most familiarity. He'll be a Bear, book it.

 

the stars do seem aligned.

Pace is now lobbying for the Bears to get Holt. The Bears offer the best QB out of the teams competing for Holt and the most familiarity. He'll be a Bear, book it.

 

If this happens, I will never make fun of sticker lettered jerseys every again.

Evidently John Clayton reported yesterday that Holt is waiting for offers from the Bears and Giants (already has them from Tenn and Jacksonville) before he signs.

Evidently John Clayton reported yesterday that Holt is waiting for offers from the Bears and Giants (already has them from Tenn and Jacksonville) before he signs.

 

Who do you go to if you're Holt, assuming the money is similar?

 

NY or Chicago?

Cutler > Eli

Forte > Jacobs (in terms of being an all around RB)

 

I'd probably go with Chicago but that could be my bias speaking.

Cutler > Eli

Forte > Jacobs (in terms of being an all around RB)

 

I'd probably go with Chicago but that could be my bias speaking.

 

Is it really fair to compare Forte to Jacobs? Jacobs is a first and second down back, and he's off the field come third down. I really think you have to compare Forte and Peterson to Jacobs and Bradshaw (and last year it was Ward).

 

Even if you do, Forte and Jacobs are such different kinds of backs that it makes it near impossible to compare them.

Is it really fair to compare Forte to Jacobs? Jacobs is a first and second down back, and he's off the field come third down. I really think you have to compare Forte and Peterson to Jacobs and Bradshaw (and last year it was Ward).

 

Even if you do, Forte and Jacobs are such different kinds of backs that it makes it near impossible to compare them.

I agree, they really aren't comparable at all. Jacobs is a big time bruiser who's goal is to run you over. Forte is an every down back who also excels as a receiver out of the backfield.

 

Either way, Holt would be a huge addition to this team. I'd imagine the offense would look something like this:

 

QB Cutler/Hanie/Basanez

RB Forte/Peterson/Wolfe

FB McKie

LT Pace/Shaffer

LG Omiyale/Beekman

C Kreutz

RG Garza/Buenning

RT Williams/Shaffer

WR Holt/Bennet

WR Hester/Davis

TE Olsen/Clark/Davis