chw42 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 6, 2014 -> 05:13 PM) It's not like I'm looking that hard for reasons to criticize him... he makes the case for me. You literally said you thought it was a good thing a call didn't go the Bears way. Think about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Could be a pretty good group of QBs in this draft. I wonder if the Bears have thought about taking one in the first round. Are they to that point yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 09:10 AM) Could be a pretty good group of QBs in this draft. I wonder if the Bears have thought about taking one in the first round. Are they to that point yet? Nope, not with the money committed to Cutler for the next 3 years. The money is invested now, boom or bust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 09:10 AM) Could be a pretty good group of QBs in this draft. I wonder if the Bears have thought about taking one in the first round. Are they to that point yet? I'm not a Bears fan by any means, but I think they let this year play out and if Cutler proves he can't hang, they start looking into QBs of the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Honestly, he's not bad enough to justify it, and this team needs to continue to get cheaper talent through the draft. We have Cutler for 3 more years, it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) I'm not a Bears fan by any means, but I think they let this year play out and if Cutler proves he can't hang, they start looking into QBs of the future. Next year they might look to find a Cutler replacement if they're still struggling along, this year just doesn't fit with his contract. No reason to bench a rookie QB for 2 years. Maybe if you pick one up in rounds 3/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:13 AM) Nope, not with the money committed to Cutler for the next 3 years. The money is invested now, boom or bust The Packers let Rodgers sit behind Favre for 3 years so you never know. Especially if they pick in the 20's, there's not as much pressure as picking a QB in the top 5 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 09:24 AM) Next year they might look to find a Cutler replacement if they're still struggling along, this year just doesn't fit with his contract. No reason to bench a rookie QB for 2 years. Maybe if you pick one up in rounds 3/4. There's plenty of reason to have a rookie QB sit on the bench for 2 years. Work on mechanics, learn and understand the offense, and learn to read the defense. As a Bills fan, you saw what happens when you throw a raw rookie QB into the fire and now EJ has been benched 14 starts into his career. Ironically, he was replaced by Kyle Orton who, in his rookie year, was forced into starting action, was absolutely terrible (but kept the Bears in the game), and then went back to the bench when Grossman was healthy. Orton got to sit, watch, and learn the remainder of 2005, all of 2006, and most of 2007; in 2008, he came back, and he was a perfectly average QB and was then a part of the package to bring Jay Cutler to Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:42 AM) There's plenty of reason to have a rookie QB sit on the bench for 2 years. Work on mechanics, learn and understand the offense, and learn to read the defense. As a Bills fan, you saw what happens when you throw a raw rookie QB into the fire and now EJ has been benched 14 starts into his career. Ironically, he was replaced by Kyle Orton who, in his rookie year, was forced into starting action, was absolutely terrible (but kept the Bears in the game), and then went back to the bench when Grossman was healthy. Orton got to sit, watch, and learn the remainder of 2005, all of 2006, and most of 2007; in 2008, he came back, and he was a perfectly average QB and was then a part of the package to bring Jay Cutler to Chicago. I'd be willing to let a 3rd round pick (Orton) sit on the bench for 2 years, but not a first round pick, not even a late first rounder if the Bears somehow wound up in that boat. Just too much demand for those guys to play, too many requirements of a first rounder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 You guys are nuts...there are a multitude of other positions we need to be drafting with our first pick in the draft over the next couple years. Yeah, if there is someone they really like rounds 3-4, go ahead and take him, but you're going to do that regardless of your starting quarterback situation if you're looking at the backups we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) I'd be willing to let a 3rd round pick (Orton) sit on the bench for 2 years, but not a first round pick, not even a late first rounder if the Bears somehow wound up in that boat. Just too much demand for those guys to play, too many requirements of a first rounder. I guess I wasn't necessarily talking about a 1st round pick either. I'm just saying it's not a bad thing for the Bears to start looking for QBs. Ultimately though, I have no problem with 1st round QBs sitting for 2 years. None whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Who would have thought Bears fans would be trying to get rid of a QB that is going to throw for 4,000 yards and 35 TDs this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 11:09 AM) Who would have thought Bears fans would be trying to get rid of a QB that is going to throw for 4,000 yards and 35 TDs this year. And also 35 turnovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:10 AM) And also 35 turnovers. Haha not a chance for 35. He's at like 11/6 right now? I think 35/17 is realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 11:20 AM) Haha not a chance for 35. He's at like 11/6 right now? I think 35/17 is realistic. All I did was add INTs plus Fumbles from the "projected 16 game" line at that link to come up to 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:20 AM) Haha not a chance for 35. He's at like 11/6 right now? I think 35/17 is realistic. Also, 6th in Completion Percentage at 68%. Grass isn't always greener. He is maddening but it could be a hell of a lot worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:22 AM) All I did was add INTs plus Fumbles from the "projected 16 game" line at that link to come up to 35. He's not going to have 35 turnovers. Are you kidding me? I don't care what you added. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen here and I've seen some pretty ridiculous s*** posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 The bottom line is there are plenty of other areas to improve while Jay is under contract that will contribute to the Bears winning. And this nonsense about "the Bears will never win a Super Bowl with Jay Cutler" is just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 11:24 AM) He's not going to have 35 turnovers. Are you kidding me? I don't care what you added. It's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen here and I've seen some pretty ridiculous s*** posted here. Which should tell you that Cutler is losing the ball at a ridiculous rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:22 AM) All I did was add INTs plus Fumbles from the "projected 16 game" line at that link to come up to 35. And that doesn't account for fumbles lost, just fumbles. The number is still ridiculous though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:25 AM) The bottom line is there are plenty of other areas to improve while Jay is under contract that will contribute to the Bears winning. And this nonsense about "the Bears will never win a Super Bowl with Jay Cutler" is just ridiculous. I do think it's still possible, but it was more likely when he was making 7 figures a season, not 8 figures. In a salary capped league, when he signed that bigger contract, the team became even more dependent on him winning games with his arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:32 AM) I do think it's still possible, but it was more likely when he was making 7 figures a season, not 8 figures. In a salary capped league, when he signed that bigger contract, the team became even more dependent on him winning games with his arm. The money is seriously the reason I'm up in arms. He's paid like an elite QB when he is a good one. Can you imagine if we had Aaron Rodgers on the Bears? The Bears would be 5-0 easily. I just think the price was too high for Jay and that we could have used that money on some DB's. Edited October 7, 2014 by pettie4sox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:35 AM) The money is seriously the reason I'm up in arms. He's paid like an elite QB when he is a good one. Can you imagine if we had Aaron Rodgers on the Bears? The Bears would be 5-0 easily. I just think the price was too high for Jay and that we could have used that money on some DB's. This isn't really true. He's paid the going rate. He's paid what he's worth. Go look around the league and check out other QB contracts for guys comparable to Jay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 7, 2014 -> 10:35 AM) The money is seriously the reason I'm up in arms. He's paid like an elite QB when he is a good one. Can you imagine if we had Aaron Rodgers on the Bears? The Bears would be 5-0 easily. I just think the price was too high for Jay and that we could have used that money on some DB's. And who was going to play QB in this scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts