Am I the only one? The Broncos stole Orton... (1 Viewer)

[nyy45]

orton might just be a better fit for the system. Cutler is a gunslinger and is prone to mistakes. Orton limits his mistakes, and when he was in chicago, he had nobody to throw to and now he's in Denver withe numerous recievers to throw to. Now, its Cutler trying to make the bears recievers better, which can be tough. So Kyle Orton wasnt so much the problem last year for the bears, it was their recievers. Don't get me wrong cutler has a better arm and is a better qb, but people overestimate him. Look at the talent he had in Denver and look what he has in chicago. Orton put up decent numbers with a bad recieving core, now he has an excellent one and hes putting up excellent numbers. end of story

 

[mMazz]

Cutler is easily the better QB. Orton does not hold a candle to him and never will. If Cutler was still on the broncos they would be 10-0 by this point not 6-0. Seriously what's wrong with you guys?

 

[TheDirtyWord]

It's really interesting how this has played out thus far. With hindsight being 20/20 a couple of observations:

1) At the time the deal was made, Orton was being positioned mostly by those evaluating the deal as a throw-in - as an expendable piece that Chicago no longer needed now that they had Cutler. At the same time, the Broncos stated that they were very pleased to get Orton in return (and chose Orton over a deal with the Redskins which included Jason Campbell). Mostly though, pundits focused on the draft pick compensation that the Broncos secured.

2) While we are only 6 games into McDaniels & Orton tenure with the Broncos, can you envision them spending a first day pick on a QB in 2010? Who is to define what a franchise QB is or when they become one? Everyone derided the Broncos for giving up a young franchise QB "you never do that...!" is what most said. It's quite possible the Bears did the same thing...

3) When we talk QB's...what's important? Arm strength? Moxie? Instincts? Leadership? Knowledge of the game? Dedication? Decision Making? I would guess all of them are...but the only basis by which alot of us are basing their comparisions on is arm strength. Cutler certainly has a cannon. But I'll tell you something...I just watched him play this weekend in Atlanta and while I wouldn't say he lost the game for the Bears, he was a primary culprit for keeping the Falcons in the game early with two early INT's when it looked like the Bears were clearly the better team. Would the Broncos be 6-0 with Jay Cutler right now? I really don't think so. It's like the basketball player who scores 20 points/game. If he gives up 20 too, how good is he?

4) With all this said, it's way too early to declare winners/losers in this deal. The Broncos still have a pick to make to fill the thing out. But the original point of the post is still valid. Orton had shown signs of being a more than capable QB in CHI. But I do believe the fan base there had already developed pre-conceived notions about Orton's potential and impact by the close of the 2008 season. Fact was that 2008 was only Orton's 2nd year starting and even though there was a significant time gap between Year 1 & 2, we've seen plenty of QB's never make that leap that he did (Kyle Boller? Jason Campbell?). 2009 has simply been a continuation of his progression. Meanwhile, Cutler's YPA is in the 7.0 range (below career levels) and his TD:INT ratio is a mediocre 10:7.

Perhaps, I'm biased because I brought this point up orignially. I just think the Broncos are a much better team for making this deal. But I will admit they are much better, much sooner than I had anticipated.

 

[DrJ]

3) When we talk QB's...what's important? Arm strength? Moxie? Instincts? Leadership? Knowledge of the game? Dedication? Decision Making? I would guess all of them are...but the only basis by which alot of us are basing their comparisions on is arm strength. Cutler certainly has a cannon. But I'll tell you something...I just watched him play this weekend in Atlanta and while I wouldn't say he lost the game for the Bears, he was a primary culprit for keeping the Falcons in the game early with two early INT's when it looked like the Bears were clearly the better team. Would the Broncos be 6-0 with Jay Cutler right now? I really don't think so. It's like the basketball player who scores 20 points/game. If he gives up 20 too, how good is he?

Oh come on - we might as well say that Ryan was the guy responsible for keeping the Bears in the game while the Falcons looked like they were clearly the better team. And as a whole, Cutler outplayed him during the course of the game. Even though Ryan was virtually untouched the entire game while Cutler was running for his life behind a sieve of a line. You ready to trade Ryan for Orton and a couple #1's?

 

[Great Justini]

I'd be curious to know how many qb's have opened a season w/o an int over 6 games.

and no, I don't count the hail mary.

 

[CalBear]

I'd be curious to know how many qb's have opened a season w/o an int over 6 games.and no, I don't count the hail mary.

Most recently, Jason Campbell 2008. Prior to that, David Garrard 2007. Very exciting company.

 

[dornado]

There's really no comparison who the better QB is. It's really not even close.

Finally the voice of reason. Maybe now, the Cutler crowd will give up the fight. Orton is the better NFL QB. [/thread]

LOL! Orton does not make the Broncos better. Cutler does make the Bears better. Of course, Cutler hasn't been in Chicago long enough for them to ruin him yet.

Orton doesn't make the Broncos better, yet they have a better record this year with him than they did last year with Cutler.Cutler makes the Bears better yet they have the same record this year that they had last year with Orton.These things don't add up to make the point you claim. In fact, just the opposite.

Right, because absolutely nothing else changed with these two teams since last year...

 

[Phlash]

I honestly think that the Broncos ripped off the Bears here. Two first rounders is insane! Orton isn't even that bad - with Brandon Marshall, Scheffler, and Royal, that offense is still going to be good. I could see him putting up 3800-4200 yards a year no problem with those guys. Plus, they're going to get a ton of defensive help through the draft now.

NOT a chance he puts up those Numbers. Orton can't throw the ball downfield. Avg 237.5 yds a game for 3800? NO WAY. The bears gave up the 18th pick and next years 1st rounder which should be around the same pick, maybe a little later. A 3rd and kyle oront. The got a franchise QB that is 25yrs old. Great deal for the bears. Any bears fan that thinks otherwise is crazy.The broncos also did well because they had to trade him and got a lot for him.

Orton is on pace for 3907 yards this season, about around where I said he'd get to, which is 244 ypg (more than was predicted in this post).I'm sticking by my guns. Guy has looked mighty impressive this year. 100 QB rating? I'll take it.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

3) When we talk QB's...what's important? Arm strength? Moxie? Instincts? Leadership? Knowledge of the game? Dedication? Decision Making? I would guess all of them are...but the only basis by which alot of us are basing their comparisions on is arm strength. Cutler certainly has a cannon. But I'll tell you something...I just watched him play this weekend in Atlanta and while I wouldn't say he lost the game for the Bears, he was a primary culprit for keeping the Falcons in the game early with two early INT's when it looked like the Bears were clearly the better team. Would the Broncos be 6-0 with Jay Cutler right now? I really don't think so. It's like the basketball player who scores 20 points/game. If he gives up 20 too, how good is he?

Oh come on - we might as well say that Ryan was the guy responsible for keeping the Bears in the game while the Falcons looked like they were clearly the better team. And as a whole, Cutler outplayed him during the course of the game. Even though Ryan was virtually untouched the entire game while Cutler was running for his life behind a sieve of a line. You ready to trade Ryan for Orton and a couple #1's?

I guess the difference is that Ryan led the Falcons on the game winning drive. No?And perhaps I'm biased, but Ryan > Cutler.

 

[KoolKat]

There's really no comparison who the better QB is. It's really not even close.

Finally the voice of reason. Maybe now, the Cutler crowd will give up the fight. Orton is the better NFL QB. [/thread]

LOL! Orton does not make the Broncos better. Cutler does make the Bears better. Of course, Cutler hasn't been in Chicago long enough for them to ruin him yet.

Orton doesn't make the Broncos better, yet they have a better record this year with him than they did last year with Cutler.Cutler makes the Bears better yet they have the same record this year that they had last year with Orton.These things don't add up to make the point you claim. In fact, just the opposite.

People can claim Cutler makes the Bears better (he probably does), but until we see evidence for that, why should I believe it? Certainly those seven interceptions (3 in the redzone) have not made the Bears better, and even more certainly, the lack of any meaningful turnover by Orton has made the Broncos better. Add in the fact that Cutler tends to fade at the end of seasons (I believe due to the diabetes), and it is far too early to say Cutler has made the Bears better. I am almost certain he will, but one should not assume facts to make an argument.People assumed Jeff George made the Falcons better too.

 

[DrJ]

3) When we talk QB's...what's important? Arm strength? Moxie? Instincts? Leadership? Knowledge of the game? Dedication? Decision Making? I would guess all of them are...but the only basis by which alot of us are basing their comparisions on is arm strength. Cutler certainly has a cannon. But I'll tell you something...I just watched him play this weekend in Atlanta and while I wouldn't say he lost the game for the Bears, he was a primary culprit for keeping the Falcons in the game early with two early INT's when it looked like the Bears were clearly the better team. Would the Broncos be 6-0 with Jay Cutler right now? I really don't think so. It's like the basketball player who scores 20 points/game. If he gives up 20 too, how good is he?

Oh come on - we might as well say that Ryan was the guy responsible for keeping the Bears in the game while the Falcons looked like they were clearly the better team. And as a whole, Cutler outplayed him during the course of the game. Even though Ryan was virtually untouched the entire game while Cutler was running for his life behind a sieve of a line. You ready to trade Ryan for Orton and a couple #1's?

I guess the difference is that Ryan led the Falcons on the game winning drive. No?And perhaps I'm biased, but Ryan > Cutler.

You don't see any difference between Cutler's situation on the final drive and Ryan's? 1) Cutler lead a game tying score.2) The Bears special teams proceeded to give up a 60 yard return and give Matt Ryan a short field to deal with.3) Cutler then leads the Bears down to the red zone and almost to 1st and goal despite the fact that his team commited 20 yards of penalties on that single set of downs.Cutler outplayed Ryan in the game. He was rated better, he had a better completion percentage, he had the same number of Int's, he had as many TD's, he had far more yards. He had a huge 30 yard run that set up the game tying score with 6 minutes left. Despite the fact that he was running for his life most of the game while the Bears had no pressure on Ryan and failed to register a sack on him for the 2nd straight season. And his WR's suck compared to Ryan's.

 

[Ghost Rider]

3) When we talk QB's...what's important? Arm strength? Moxie? Instincts? Leadership? Knowledge of the game? Dedication? Decision Making? I would guess all of them are...but the only basis by which alot of us are basing their comparisions on is arm strength. Cutler certainly has a cannon. But I'll tell you something...I just watched him play this weekend in Atlanta and while I wouldn't say he lost the game for the Bears, he was a primary culprit for keeping the Falcons in the game early with two early INT's when it looked like the Bears were clearly the better team. Would the Broncos be 6-0 with Jay Cutler right now? I really don't think so. It's like the basketball player who scores 20 points/game. If he gives up 20 too, how good is he?

Oh come on - we might as well say that Ryan was the guy responsible for keeping the Bears in the game while the Falcons looked like they were clearly the better team. And as a whole, Cutler outplayed him during the course of the game. Even though Ryan was virtually untouched the entire game while Cutler was running for his life behind a sieve of a line. You ready to trade Ryan for Orton and a couple #1's?

I guess the difference is that Ryan led the Falcons on the game winning drive. No?And perhaps I'm biased, but Ryan > Cutler.

You don't see any difference between Cutler's situation on the final drive and Ryan's? 1) Cutler lead a game tying score.2) The Bears special teams proceeded to give up a 60 yard return and give Matt Ryan a short field to deal with.3) Cutler then leads the Bears down to the red zone and almost to 1st and goal despite the fact that his team commited 20 yards of penalties on that single set of downs.Cutler outplayed Ryan in the game. He was rated better, he had a better completion percentage, he had as many TD's, he had far more yards. Despite the fact that he was running for his life most of the game while the Bears had no pressure on Ryan and failed to register a sack on him for the 2nd straight season. And his WR's suck compared to Ryan's.

I am not bagging on Matt Ryan, who is looking to be a winner at QB, but yeah, he had much more favorable conditions on his game-winning drive than Cutler had on the Bears final drive.

 

[DrJ]

3) When we talk QB's...what's important? Arm strength? Moxie? Instincts? Leadership? Knowledge of the game? Dedication? Decision Making? I would guess all of them are...but the only basis by which alot of us are basing their comparisions on is arm strength. Cutler certainly has a cannon. But I'll tell you something...I just watched him play this weekend in Atlanta and while I wouldn't say he lost the game for the Bears, he was a primary culprit for keeping the Falcons in the game early with two early INT's when it looked like the Bears were clearly the better team. Would the Broncos be 6-0 with Jay Cutler right now? I really don't think so. It's like the basketball player who scores 20 points/game. If he gives up 20 too, how good is he?

Oh come on - we might as well say that Ryan was the guy responsible for keeping the Bears in the game while the Falcons looked like they were clearly the better team. And as a whole, Cutler outplayed him during the course of the game. Even though Ryan was virtually untouched the entire game while Cutler was running for his life behind a sieve of a line. You ready to trade Ryan for Orton and a couple #1's?

I guess the difference is that Ryan led the Falcons on the game winning drive. No?And perhaps I'm biased, but Ryan > Cutler.

You don't see any difference between Cutler's situation on the final drive and Ryan's? 1) Cutler lead a game tying score.2) The Bears special teams proceeded to give up a 60 yard return and give Matt Ryan a short field to deal with.3) Cutler then leads the Bears down to the red zone and almost to 1st and goal despite the fact that his team commited 20 yards of penalties on that single set of downs.Cutler outplayed Ryan in the game. He was rated better, he had a better completion percentage, he had as many TD's, he had far more yards. Despite the fact that he was running for his life most of the game while the Bears had no pressure on Ryan and failed to register a sack on him for the 2nd straight season. And his WR's suck compared to Ryan's.

I am not bagging on Matt Ryan, who is looking to be a winner at QB, but yeah, he had much more favorable conditions on his game-winning drive than Cutler had on the Bears final drive.

I'm not trying to bag on Ryan either, he's a great young QB who looks to have tremendous upside as well. But I think it's a fair comparison to illustrate that no one "stole" Kyle Orton. It's not like Falcon fans are excited about the idea of Ryan for Orton and a couple of middle of the road #1's. Cutler is also a great young QB with tremendous upside, some would argue greater upside than Ryan. Even if Cutler isn't clearly outplaying Orton statwise at this point in time, just like Ryan isn't, there's no doubt that he has long term potential that few QB's in the league do and the trade makes sense on that basis alone. I don't believe Orton has the upside either of these guys do.And wins and stats don't happen in a vacuum. What Jay Cutler is doing with this supporting cast on offense is getting completely underrated. His line sucks, his WR's suck, and he has no running game. Since that disastrous 1st half of game 1, he's still rated 99.7. He's rated over 100 over the last 4 games. Even in this past game he supposedly "cost" them, he was rated 79.6 vs the opposing QB's 68.4. Strangely Kyle Orton was given credit for "winnings games" with sub 50 ratings last season. Kyle Orton would not be doing what Jay Cutler is doing in this same offense, period, end of story.It definitely looks like the Broncos faired better in the thing than some of us gave them credit for. But people are being a little unfairly critical of Jay Cutler with some of these measures of whether he's successful. Anything less than 5-0 or 4-1 with a team that didn't even make the playoff last season in a pretty weak conference where 8-7-1 was good enough to go, and has lost one of their better players for the season in Urlacher, and he's a loser that hasn't proven he can lead a team to victories? That's really pretty ridiculous.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

3) When we talk QB's...what's important? Arm strength? Moxie? Instincts? Leadership? Knowledge of the game? Dedication? Decision Making? I would guess all of them are...but the only basis by which alot of us are basing their comparisions on is arm strength. Cutler certainly has a cannon. But I'll tell you something...I just watched him play this weekend in Atlanta and while I wouldn't say he lost the game for the Bears, he was a primary culprit for keeping the Falcons in the game early with two early INT's when it looked like the Bears were clearly the better team. Would the Broncos be 6-0 with Jay Cutler right now? I really don't think so. It's like the basketball player who scores 20 points/game. If he gives up 20 too, how good is he?

Oh come on - we might as well say that Ryan was the guy responsible for keeping the Bears in the game while the Falcons looked like they were clearly the better team. And as a whole, Cutler outplayed him during the course of the game. Even though Ryan was virtually untouched the entire game while Cutler was running for his life behind a sieve of a line. You ready to trade Ryan for Orton and a couple #1's?

I guess the difference is that Ryan led the Falcons on the game winning drive. No?And perhaps I'm biased, but Ryan > Cutler.

You don't see any difference between Cutler's situation on the final drive and Ryan's? 1) Cutler lead a game tying score.2) The Bears special teams proceeded to give up a 60 yard return and give Matt Ryan a short field to deal with.3) Cutler then leads the Bears down to the red zone and almost to 1st and goal despite the fact that his team commited 20 yards of penalties on that single set of downs.Cutler outplayed Ryan in the game. He was rated better, he had a better completion percentage, he had the same number of Int's, he had as many TD's, he had far more yards. He had a huge 30 yard run that set up the game tying score with 6 minutes left. Despite the fact that he was running for his life most of the game while the Bears had no pressure on Ryan and failed to register a sack on him for the 2nd straight season. And his WR's suck compared to Ryan's.

4) Ryan put the ball in the end zone.Matt Schaub leads the Texans up and down the field. Pretty much is a sure bet for 250-275 YPG. He's a .500 QB. If we're not talking fantasy stats/performance and true effectiveness on the field, what ultimately matters is the ability to put the ball in the end zone. Cutler did not even though he had opportunities to do so.

 

[DrJ]

3) When we talk QB's...what's important? Arm strength? Moxie? Instincts? Leadership? Knowledge of the game? Dedication? Decision Making? I would guess all of them are...but the only basis by which alot of us are basing their comparisions on is arm strength. Cutler certainly has a cannon. But I'll tell you something...I just watched him play this weekend in Atlanta and while I wouldn't say he lost the game for the Bears, he was a primary culprit for keeping the Falcons in the game early with two early INT's when it looked like the Bears were clearly the better team. Would the Broncos be 6-0 with Jay Cutler right now? I really don't think so. It's like the basketball player who scores 20 points/game. If he gives up 20 too, how good is he?

Oh come on - we might as well say that Ryan was the guy responsible for keeping the Bears in the game while the Falcons looked like they were clearly the better team. And as a whole, Cutler outplayed him during the course of the game. Even though Ryan was virtually untouched the entire game while Cutler was running for his life behind a sieve of a line. You ready to trade Ryan for Orton and a couple #1's?

I guess the difference is that Ryan led the Falcons on the game winning drive. No?And perhaps I'm biased, but Ryan > Cutler.

You don't see any difference between Cutler's situation on the final drive and Ryan's? 1) Cutler lead a game tying score.2) The Bears special teams proceeded to give up a 60 yard return and give Matt Ryan a short field to deal with.3) Cutler then leads the Bears down to the red zone and almost to 1st and goal despite the fact that his team commited 20 yards of penalties on that single set of downs.Cutler outplayed Ryan in the game. He was rated better, he had a better completion percentage, he had the same number of Int's, he had as many TD's, he had far more yards. He had a huge 30 yard run that set up the game tying score with 6 minutes left. Despite the fact that he was running for his life most of the game while the Bears had no pressure on Ryan and failed to register a sack on him for the 2nd straight season. And his WR's suck compared to Ryan's.

4) Ryan put the ball in the end zone.Matt Schaub leads the Texans up and down the field. Pretty much is a sure bet for 250-275 YPG. He's a .500 QB. If we're not talking fantasy stats/performance and true effectiveness on the field, what ultimately matters is the ability to put the ball in the end zone. Cutler did not even though he had opportunities to do so.

Ah, it makes perfect sense now. Schaub loses a game where he goes 26/35 for 300 yards, 3 TD's, 1 Int or one where he's 35/50 for 371 yards, 2 TD's, and 1 Int and he's a loser. Meanwhile Ryan wins a game where 19/33 for 185 yards, 2 TD's, and 2 Int's and he's a winner simply because one of the TD's happened to come late in the game. Although he was playing against a loser QB that has no idea how to win, so we might have to put an asterisk next to it.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

3) When we talk QB's...what's important? Arm strength? Moxie? Instincts? Leadership? Knowledge of the game? Dedication? Decision Making? I would guess all of them are...but the only basis by which alot of us are basing their comparisions on is arm strength. Cutler certainly has a cannon. But I'll tell you something...I just watched him play this weekend in Atlanta and while I wouldn't say he lost the game for the Bears, he was a primary culprit for keeping the Falcons in the game early with two early INT's when it looked like the Bears were clearly the better team. Would the Broncos be 6-0 with Jay Cutler right now? I really don't think so. It's like the basketball player who scores 20 points/game. If he gives up 20 too, how good is he?

I guess the difference is that Ryan led the Falcons on the game winning drive. No?And perhaps I'm biased, but Ryan > Cutler.

You don't see any difference between Cutler's situation on the final drive and Ryan's? 1) Cutler lead a game tying score.2) The Bears special teams proceeded to give up a 60 yard return and give Matt Ryan a short field to deal with.3) Cutler then leads the Bears down to the red zone and almost to 1st and goal despite the fact that his team commited 20 yards of penalties on that single set of downs.Cutler outplayed Ryan in the game. He was rated better, he had a better completion percentage, he had the same number of Int's, he had as many TD's, he had far more yards. He had a huge 30 yard run that set up the game tying score with 6 minutes left. Despite the fact that he was running for his life most of the game while the Bears had no pressure on Ryan and failed to register a sack on him for the 2nd straight season. And his WR's suck compared to Ryan's.

4) Ryan put the ball in the end zone.Matt Schaub leads the Texans up and down the field. Pretty much is a sure bet for 250-275 YPG. He's a .500 QB. If we're not talking fantasy stats/performance and true effectiveness on the field, what ultimately matters is the ability to put the ball in the end zone. Cutler did not even though he had opportunities to do so.

Ah, it makes perfect sense now. Schaub loses a game where he goes 26/35 for 300 yards, 3 TD's, 1 Int or one where he's 35/50 for 371 yards, 2 TD's, and 1 Int and he's a loser. Meanwhile Ryan wins a game where 19/33 for 185 yards, 2 TD's, and 2 Int's and he's a winner simply because one of the TD's happened to come late in the game. Although he was playing against a loser QB that has no idea how to win, so we might have to put an asterisk next to it.

Ryan is a winner because he's stepped in from day one and wins 2.5 games to every 1 he loses. He demonstrated this in college when he played porrly for 56 minutes, but in the final 4 led BC to a comeback (and improbable) win. He did this against Chicago last year, when after all hope was seemingly lost, he put a ball right on the money to give the Falcons a FG chance. Fact is, he didn't throw a TD late in either Chicago game to win, but he put his team in position to win.Listen, Cutler has had these moments too in his career. And I don't think Cutler is a bad QB - but I do think he still has to mature as a leader. But if you were at that game (and there were about 15-20K Bears fans at that game), when Cutler threw those INT's it was a definite momentum shift, to the point where I felt that if the Bears had stayed the course, they could have had a signature win. Ryan's INT's cost the Falcons too, but it didn't result in a loss.IMO, the hallmark of a great QB is how he responds and how his team responds to him when the game is on the line. Like you said, the Bears had 3 penalties on that final drive for 20 yards. The Falcons had none. It's simply not about just how the one guy under center responds, it's how he does and how he gets the 10 other guys on the field with him to.

 

[switz]

Cutler is also a great young QB with tremendous upside, some would argue greater upside than Ryan.

No, no reasonable person would argue that.

 

[inzanitee]

Cutler is also a great young QB with tremendous upside, some would argue greater upside than Ryan.

No, no reasonable person would argue that.

I love Ryan but Cutler is right in there IMO, don't know why it's so farfetched to consider Cutler on that level.

 

[Buffaloes]

Cutler is also a great young QB with tremendous upside, some would argue greater upside than Ryan.

No, no reasonable person would argue that.

I love Ryan but Cutler is right in there IMO, don't know why it's so farfetched to consider Cutler on that level.

no kidding. he has all the physical tools you would want in a QB.

 

[thatguy]

Cutler is also a great young QB with tremendous upside, some would argue greater upside than Ryan.

No, no reasonable person would argue that.

I love Ryan but Cutler is right in there IMO, don't know why it's so farfetched to consider Cutler on that level.

I think Cutler, from a pure physical talent standpoint, has as much upside as any QB in the league. But he is lacking in other areas. His decision making is very sub-par at times. His over-confidence in his arm is still a big problem - he would rather force the ball into coverage downfield than go through his progressions and check down to his second, third, or fourth option. I think these are things that are hard to teach - they fall into the more intangible category of "football smarts" which in itself is a talent - so it's not a certainty that he ever rights these chinks in his game. One thing he has improved upon this season is touch passes - in Denver, it seemed he always tried to rocket the ball regardless of the situation. This season he is doing a much better job of using touch when necessary, getting the ball over defenders and laying it in to a place where only his WR can catch it. As always, time will tell, but if Cutler can improve upon the inadequacies that I mentioned, watch out!

 

[Tau837]

Not sure how this thread became about Ryan vs. Cutler. That said, I think it's safe to assume both have all the physical attributes needed to succeed as an NFL QB. Sure, Cutler may have better physical tools, but Ryan's are good enough.

So IMO this comparison is not about that. It's about the non-physical stuff. Stuff like intelligence, maturity, leadership, ability to read defenses, decision-making, etc. Overall, I think it is obvious that Ryan is better than Cutler in this area. I mean, I don't know that he's smarter or better at reading defenses, but I definitely think he has shown stronger leadership and better maturity... And I think he is a better decision-maker, as he does not seem as inclined as Cutler to force the ball into coverage.

How these things translate into winning depends a lot on context - the team around the QB, coaching, injuries, etc. But I think it's safe to say that most NFL QBs have the physical tools needed to succeed. For the rare exceptions, they can overcome weaker physical tools with really strong non-physical attributes. Orton is an example of this.

But I don't think a QB can go the opposite way and be a top tier QB. That is, I don't think a QB can make up for below average leadership, maturity, decision-making, etc. through exceptional physical skills. Vick is an example. He was never an elite QB, despite amazing physical tools.

It tends to be the non-physical attributes that separate the best from the rest. Cutler can certainly become more mature, a better leader, and a better decision-maker. But IMO he still has work to do in those areas to earn a spot in the top tier of QBs.

 

[DrJ]

Not sure how this thread became about Ryan vs. Cutler. That said, I think it's safe to assume both have all the physical attributes needed to succeed as an NFL QB. Sure, Cutler may have better physical tools, but Ryan's are good enough.So IMO this comparison is not about that. It's about the non-physical stuff. Stuff like intelligence, maturity, leadership, ability to read defenses, decision-making, etc. Overall, I think it is obvious that Ryan is better than Cutler in this area. I mean, I don't know that he's smarter or better at reading defenses, but I definitely think he has shown stronger leadership and better maturity... And I think he is a better decision-maker, as he does not seem as inclined as Cutler to force the ball into coverage.How these things translate into winning depends a lot on context - the team around the QB, coaching, injuries, etc. But I think it's safe to say that most NFL QBs have the physical tools needed to succeed. For the rare exceptions, they can overcome weaker physical tools with really strong non-physical attributes. Orton is an example of this.But I don't think a QB can go the opposite way and be a top tier QB. That is, I don't think a QB can make up for below average leadership, maturity, decision-making, etc. through exceptional physical skills. Vick is an example. He was never an elite QB, despite amazing physical tools.It tends to be the non-physical attributes that separate the best from the rest. Cutler can certainly become more mature, a better leader, and a better decision-maker. But IMO he still has work to do in those areas to earn a spot in the top tier of QBs.

What about Vick's 38-28-1 record? He's a "winner". Gets it done when the game is on the line, etc, etc.

 

[switz]

Cutler is also a great young QB with tremendous upside, some would argue greater upside than Ryan.

No, no reasonable person would argue that.

I love Ryan but Cutler is right in there IMO, don't know why it's so farfetched to consider Cutler on that level.

no kidding. he has all the physical tools you would want in a QB.

And none of the mental tools.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Cutler is also a great young QB with tremendous upside, some would argue greater upside than Ryan.

No, no reasonable person would argue that.

I love Ryan but Cutler is right in there IMO, don't know why it's so farfetched to consider Cutler on that level.

no kidding. he has all the physical tools you would want in a QB.

And none of the mental tools.

He has as good a numbers at this point in his career than Drew Brees did at the same point, and he already has a bunch of 4th quarter comebacks (paging SSOG). A QB who is mentally weak does not make a habit out of leading a team from behind in the 4th quarter.

 

[Buffaloes]

Cutler is also a great young QB with tremendous upside, some would argue greater upside than Ryan.

No, no reasonable person would argue that.

I love Ryan but Cutler is right in there IMO, don't know why it's so farfetched to consider Cutler on that level.

no kidding. he has all the physical tools you would want in a QB.

And none of the mental tools.

None is a bit of a stretch, but as mentioned by another poster Cutler's flaws are ones that can be easily fixed and I assume will be fixed as he matures on the field.

 

[Tau837]

Not sure how this thread became about Ryan vs. Cutler. That said, I think it's safe to assume both have all the physical attributes needed to succeed as an NFL QB. Sure, Cutler may have better physical tools, but Ryan's are good enough.So IMO this comparison is not about that. It's about the non-physical stuff. Stuff like intelligence, maturity, leadership, ability to read defenses, decision-making, etc. Overall, I think it is obvious that Ryan is better than Cutler in this area. I mean, I don't know that he's smarter or better at reading defenses, but I definitely think he has shown stronger leadership and better maturity... And I think he is a better decision-maker, as he does not seem as inclined as Cutler to force the ball into coverage.How these things translate into winning depends a lot on context - the team around the QB, coaching, injuries, etc. But I think it's safe to say that most NFL QBs have the physical tools needed to succeed. For the rare exceptions, they can overcome weaker physical tools with really strong non-physical attributes. Orton is an example of this.But I don't think a QB can go the opposite way and be a top tier QB. That is, I don't think a QB can make up for below average leadership, maturity, decision-making, etc. through exceptional physical skills. Vick is an example. He was never an elite QB, despite amazing physical tools.It tends to be the non-physical attributes that separate the best from the rest. Cutler can certainly become more mature, a better leader, and a better decision-maker. But IMO he still has work to do in those areas to earn a spot in the top tier of QBs.

What about Vick's 38-28-1 record? He's a "winner". Gets it done when the game is on the line, etc, etc.

In 2004, Vick's record as a starter was 11-4. The rest of his career, it is 27-24-1. His teams made the playoffs 2 times, in 2002 and 2004... the only two times his teams had winning records. His career record does look good, but looking at these facts, I'm not sure I'd use "winner" to describe him, since that only describes one or two seasons worth of performance.Or maybe he's an exception to the general rule I stated above. Are there other exceptions? If so, maybe it's not actually a general rule.

 

[switz]

None is a bit of a stretch, but as mentioned by another poster Cutler's flaws are ones that can be easily fixed and I assume will be fixed as he matures on the field.

Are you referring to this?

But I don't think a QB can go the opposite way and be a top tier QB. That is, I don't think a QB can make up for below average leadership, maturity, decision-making, etc. through exceptional physical skills. Vick is an example. He was never an elite QB, despite amazing physical tools.

It tends to be the non-physical attributes that separate the best from the rest. Cutler can certainly become more mature, a better leader, and a better decision-maker. But IMO he still has work to do in those areas to earn a spot in the top tier of QBs.

If so, it doesn't say what you think.

 

[Buffaloes]

None is a bit of a stretch, but as mentioned by another poster Cutler's flaws are ones that can be easily fixed and I assume will be fixed as he matures on the field.

Are you referring to this?

Cutler can certainly become more mature, a better leader, and a better decision-maker. But IMO he still has work to do in those areas to earn a spot in the top tier of QBs.

If so, it doesn't say what you think.

I was referring to the above. I don't think that Cutler and Ryan are that far apart. If Cutler can mature on the field, it is not unfathomable that he and Ryan can both become elite QBs in this league. I'll leave it at that.

 

[switz]

None is a bit of a stretch, but as mentioned by another poster Cutler's flaws are ones that can be easily fixed and I assume will be fixed as he matures on the field.

Are you referring to this?

Cutler can certainly become more mature, a better leader, and a better decision-maker. But IMO he still has work to do in those areas to earn a spot in the top tier of QBs.

If so, it doesn't say what you think.

I was referring to the above. I don't think that Cutler and Ryan are that far apart. If Cutler can mature on the field, it is not unfathomable that he and Ryan can both become elite QBs in this league. I'll leave it at that.

I still don't see "easily fixed" anywhere in that

 

[Buffaloes]

None is a bit of a stretch, but as mentioned by another poster Cutler's flaws are ones that can be easily fixed and I assume will be fixed as he matures on the field.

Are you referring to this?

Cutler can certainly become more mature, a better leader, and a better decision-maker. But IMO he still has work to do in those areas to earn a spot in the top tier of QBs.

If so, it doesn't say what you think.

I was referring to the above. I don't think that Cutler and Ryan are that far apart. If Cutler can mature on the field, it is not unfathomable that he and Ryan can both become elite QBs in this league. I'll leave it at that.

I still don't see "easily fixed" anywhere in that

All right, Mr. nitpick. I think it can be easily fixed. Better?

 

[shredhead]

I thought this was a thread about Orton, my mistake I guess. I'll go check the DeAngelo Williams thread and see if there is any news on Orton.

 

[Sinn Fein]

$30 million contract

he he he

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I think at this point it's safe to say the Broncos committed felony larceny.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

you aren't the only one.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I honestly think that the Broncos ripped off the Bears here. Two first rounders is insane! Orton isn't even that bad - with Brandon Marshall, Scheffler, and Royal, that offense is still going to be good. I could see him putting up 3800-4200 yards a year no problem with those guys. Plus, they're going to get a ton of defensive help through the draft now.

NOT a chance he puts up those Numbers. Orton can't throw the ball downfield. Avg 237.5 yds a game for 3800? NO WAY. The bears gave up the 18th pick and next years 1st rounder which should be around the same pick, maybe a little later. A 3rd and kyle oront. The got a franchise QB that is 25yrs old. Great deal for the bears. Any bears fan that thinks otherwise is crazy.

The broncos also did well because they had to trade him and got a lot for him.

oof . . . here is what I don't understand in the whole Cutler v. Orton debate - the Bears gave up a lot more for Cutler than Orton. So Cutler needed to be a lot better than Orton to make this deal pay off. It has not happened.Chicago is staring a 10-loss season right in the face right now.

I saw some posts earlier today from some Chicago supporters who are trying to spin this trade as a trade for the future. BIG RED X

You don't trade draft picks away if you are building for the future. This was clearly a win-now type of trade, that has failed miserably. YOu can point to lots of reasons - Cutler is not a good NFL QB, he does not have good WRs, the OL is playing poorly (despite the ballyhooed FA signing), the defense has taken a step back, etc.

But all of these factors were true when the Bears made the deal. It shows poor leadership from management that they did not recognize that QB was not their biggest problem. SO, they mortgaged a bit of their future to plug a hole that did not need plugged, and the plug was not even that good.

Cutler may yet develop into a good NFL QB (even Jeff George is still trying to get his shot in the league), but this was a terrible trade by the Bears franchise.

 

[Statcruncher]

I honestly think that the Broncos ripped off the Bears here. Two first rounders is insane! Orton isn't even that bad - with Brandon Marshall, Scheffler, and Royal, that offense is still going to be good. I could see him putting up 3800-4200 yards a year no problem with those guys. Plus, they're going to get a ton of defensive help through the draft now.

NOT a chance he puts up those Numbers. Orton can't throw the ball downfield. Avg 237.5 yds a game for 3800? NO WAY. The bears gave up the 18th pick and next years 1st rounder which should be around the same pick, maybe a little later. A 3rd and kyle oront. The got a franchise QB that is 25yrs old. Great deal for the bears. Any bears fan that thinks otherwise is crazy.

The broncos also did well because they had to trade him and got a lot for him.

oof . . . here is what I don't understand in the whole Cutler v. Orton debate - the Bears gave up a lot more for Cutler than Orton. So Cutler needed to be a lot better than Orton to make this deal pay off. It has not happened.Chicago is staring a 10-loss season right in the face right now.

I saw some posts earlier today from some Chicago supporters who are trying to spin this trade as a trade for the future. BIG RED X

You don't trade draft picks away if you are building for the future. This was clearly a win-now type of trade, that has failed miserably. YOu can point to lots of reasons - Cutler is not a good NFL QB, he does not have good WRs, the OL is playing poorly (despite the ballyhooed FA signing), the defense has taken a step back, etc.

But all of these factors were true when the Bears made the deal. It shows poor leadership from management that they did not recognize that QB was not their biggest problem. SO, they mortgaged a bit of their future to plug a hole that did not need plugged, and the plug was not even that good.

Cutler may yet develop into a good NFL QB (even Jeff George is still trying to get his shot in the league), but this was a terrible trade by the Bears franchise.

Your points are good but the timeline is off. When he was signed in the offseason the most pressing need was indeed quarterback. WR was issue #2, but the offensive line and defense were way down the list. No one predicted the asbolute implosion of the offensive line (which they thought they addressed in the offseason by throwing money at "has beens"). And to say the defense has "taken a step back" is ridiculously understated. If management is guilty of anything it is not being realistic when evaluating the offensive line and defense.I have not gotten to see all the games this year so I don't have a complete picture, but as a Chicago homer I still think the trade for Cutler was the correct move. I have to admit the combination of Denver's success and Chicago's epic fail has been a kick to the groin. I may be simply trying to justify it to myself, but I believe the o-lines and defenses are responsible for each club's record. Denver's very solid o-line allows Orton to play to his strength (dink and dunk) while his defense makes sure he's not having to put 30 points on the board. Chicago appears to be hopeless on defense and Cutler has little time behind an incredibly bad offensive line. Jay's ability to scramble and feel the pressure is the only thing that has kept him upright, IMO if Orton were the Chicago QB this year he would have already been knocked out for the year. Regardless, there is still no excuse for Cutler chucking the amount of picks he has racked up. It's clear he makes bad choices and I hope he can correct that.

When the trade was made I had giddy dreams of winning the division, maybe winning a playoff game or two, and being a serious Superbowl contender in 2010. Needless to say these are put to rest for this year and probably 2010. My new timeline is maybe making the playoffs in 2011, but there are alot of holes to fill in the offensive line and defense before then. There is no way a team with an INT happy QB, no running game, and a putrid defense has a shot at anything except a high draft pick (which is gone). Even knowing what I know now though, I would still make the trade.

Orton is a dependable average or maybe slightly above average QB who is very accurate on his shorter throws. He is not very mobile but is very patient and will take what the defense gives him. He doesn't take risks and protects the ball. IMO what we are seeing out of Orton is about his ceiling. On the other hand Cutler has a cannon, is very mobile and can extend a play, but unfortunately often makes poor decisions trying to force the ball. If Cutler cannot correct his mental errors then the Bears have shackled themselves with a "can win anygame, can lose anygame" QB. However, if Cutler can mature, get patient, and make smart decisions then the Bears have someone who could be a perennial Pro Bowler. Maybe it's the Bear's pitiful drafting record, but the bold move to bring someone with the potential of Cutler to the Windy City is still a fantastic move in my view.

 

[moleculo]

Your points are good but the timeline is off. When he was signed in the offseason the most pressing need was indeed quarterback. WR was issue #2, but the offensive line and defense were way down the list. No one predicted the asbolute implosion of the offensive line (which they thought they addressed in the offseason by throwing money at "has beens"). And to say the defense has "taken a step back" is ridiculously understated. If management is guilty of anything it is not being realistic when evaluating the offensive line and defense....Orton is a dependable average or maybe slightly above average QB who is very accurate on his shorter throws. He is not very mobile but is very patient and will take what the defense gives him. He doesn't take risks and protects the ball. IMO what we are seeing out of Orton is about his ceiling. On the other hand Cutler has a cannon, is very mobile and can extend a play, but unfortunately often makes poor decisions trying to force the ball. If Cutler cannot correct his mental errors then the Bears have shackled themselves with a "can win anygame, can lose anygame" QB. However, if Cutler can mature, get patient, and make smart decisions then the Bears have someone who could be a perennial Pro Bowler. Maybe it's the Bear's pitiful drafting record, but the bold move to bring someone with the potential of Cutler to the Windy City is still a fantastic move in my view.

that's the thing though - I never believed that Chicago's most pressing need was QB. IMO, the formula for Chicago to be successful is to play strong D, rely on your running game, and have a QB who takes care of the ball. That's the formula used by the early Pats, Ravens, Steelers, Giants, Buccaneers, etc. to win superbowls. It's a tried and proven method for success in the NFL, especially for a team that hopes to host playoff games on the banks of Lake Michigan. Instead, Chicago really wants to throw the ball around - they want to be as pass happy as a dome team, and I don't get it. When they went to the SB, they had roughly a 50% run/pass ratio - in 07 they were @ 43%, in 08 they were @ 45% (league average is roughly 46%). This is a team with a historically good D, a good RB and terrible WR's, yet they have not played to their strengths. I imagine Chicago wants to be a high-powered O to compete with what they see in Green Bay, and I simply don't understand why.Had Chicago kept Orton, they could have used some of their picks to improve. consider - available @ 18, they could have had Maclin, Oher, Alex Mack, Eric Wood, Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks. There was definitely WR talent available. I don't know how those lineman are doing, but there are multiple game starters avaliable right there. In the 3rd round, the Bears pick was used by Pittsburgh to draft Mike Wallace. I'm not sure whom else the Bears could have been interested in at that point.Point is, they could have built around Orton, strengthened their weaknesses, and been a decent team. Trading for cutler, IMO, reaks of a OC on the hot seat, blaming the QB for all of the shortcomings, and hoping for a miracle cure brought by a"franchise QB".Orton, IMO, is everything that a team like Chicago needs.

 

[Statcruncher]

that's the thing though - I never believed that Chicago's most pressing need was QB. IMO, the formula for Chicago to be successful is to play strong D, rely on your running game, and have a QB who takes care of the ball. That's the formula used by the early Pats, Ravens, Steelers, Giants, Buccaneers, etc. to win superbowls. It's a tried and proven method for success in the NFL, especially for a team that hopes to host playoff games on the banks of Lake Michigan.

Instead, Chicago really wants to throw the ball around - they want to be as pass happy as a dome team, and I don't get it. When they went to the SB, they had roughly a 50% run/pass ratio - in 07 they were @ 43%, in 08 they were @ 45% (league average is roughly 46%). This is a team with a historically good D, a good RB and terrible WR's, yet they have not played to their strengths. I imagine Chicago wants to be a high-powered O to compete with what they see in Green Bay, and I simply don't understand why.

Had Chicago kept Orton, they could have used some of their picks to improve. consider - available @ 18, they could have had Maclin, Oher, Alex Mack, Eric Wood, Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks. There was definitely WR talent available. I don't know how those lineman are doing, but there are multiple game starters avaliable right there. In the 3rd round, the Bears pick was used by Pittsburgh to draft Mike Wallace. I'm not sure whom else the Bears could have been interested in at that point.

Point is, they could have built around Orton, strengthened their weaknesses, and been a decent team. Trading for cutler, IMO, reaks of a OC on the hot seat, blaming the QB for all of the shortcomings, and hoping for a miracle cure brought by a"franchise QB".

Orton, IMO, is everything that a team like Chicago needs.

Two excellent points. I don't understand why the Bears are trying to pass so much. It's maddening and they show no sign of letting up. Secondly, the Bears have a horrible track record when it comes to high draft picks so I'm not to worried about missing out on the next bust. The problem with the Bears this year is the monumental fall of the defense and offensive line. It is staggering just how much of a dropoff those units have experienced. Even if they had kept Orton and hit on a couple of the draft picks they lost there is no way they could overcome their turnstile o-line and defense. I actually think the offense would be in even bigger trouble with Orton back there. Defenses would crowd the box to take away his short throws. At least with Cutler in there the defense is forced to play deeper so they have someone back there to intercept the long ball.

 

[sdsjr3]

Your points are good but the timeline is off. When he was signed in the offseason the most pressing need was indeed quarterback. WR was issue #2, but the offensive line and defense were way down the list. No one predicted the asbolute implosion of the offensive line (which they thought they addressed in the offseason by throwing money at "has beens"). And to say the defense has "taken a step back" is ridiculously understated. If management is guilty of anything it is not being realistic when evaluating the offensive line and defense....Orton is a dependable average or maybe slightly above average QB who is very accurate on his shorter throws. He is not very mobile but is very patient and will take what the defense gives him. He doesn't take risks and protects the ball. IMO what we are seeing out of Orton is about his ceiling. On the other hand Cutler has a cannon, is very mobile and can extend a play, but unfortunately often makes poor decisions trying to force the ball. If Cutler cannot correct his mental errors then the Bears have shackled themselves with a "can win anygame, can lose anygame" QB. However, if Cutler can mature, get patient, and make smart decisions then the Bears have someone who could be a perennial Pro Bowler. Maybe it's the Bear's pitiful drafting record, but the bold move to bring someone with the potential of Cutler to the Windy City is still a fantastic move in my view.

that's the thing though - I never believed that Chicago's most pressing need was QB. IMO, the formula for Chicago to be successful is to play strong D, rely on your running game, and have a QB who takes care of the ball. That's the formula used by the early Pats, Ravens, Steelers, Giants, Buccaneers, etc. to win superbowls. It's a tried and proven method for success in the NFL, especially for a team that hopes to host playoff games on the banks of Lake Michigan. Instead, Chicago really wants to throw the ball around - they want to be as pass happy as a dome team, and I don't get it. When they went to the SB, they had roughly a 50% run/pass ratio - in 07 they were @ 43%, in 08 they were @ 45% (league average is roughly 46%). This is a team with a historically good D, a good RB and terrible WR's, yet they have not played to their strengths. I imagine Chicago wants to be a high-powered O to compete with what they see in Green Bay, and I simply don't understand why.Had Chicago kept Orton, they could have used some of their picks to improve. consider - available @ 18, they could have had Maclin, Oher, Alex Mack, Eric Wood, Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks. There was definitely WR talent available. I don't know how those lineman are doing, but there are multiple game starters avaliable right there. In the 3rd round, the Bears pick was used by Pittsburgh to draft Mike Wallace. I'm not sure whom else the Bears could have been interested in at that point.Point is, they could have built around Orton, strengthened their weaknesses, and been a decent team. Trading for cutler, IMO, reaks of a OC on the hot seat, blaming the QB for all of the shortcomings, and hoping for a miracle cure brought by a"franchise QB".Orton, IMO, is everything that a team like Chicago needs.

VERY Exactly my opinion as well. None of this whole Cutler scenario has made sense based on the Bears' makeup and history.

 

[mbuehner]

Two excellent points. I don't understand why the Bears are trying to pass so much.

Because they suck at running?

 

[gigantor]

Two excellent points. I don't understand why the Bears are trying to pass so much.

Because they suck at running?

 

[Manster]

Two excellent points. I don't understand why the Bears are trying to pass so much.

Because they suck at running?

<_<

they suck at passing too.

 

[The Kansas Comet]

that's the thing though - I never believed that Chicago's most pressing need was QB. IMO, the formula for Chicago to be successful is to play strong D, rely on your running game, and have a QB who takes care of the ball. That's the formula used by the early Pats, Ravens, Steelers, Giants, Buccaneers, etc. to win superbowls. It's a tried and proven method for success in the NFL, especially for a team that hopes to host playoff games on the banks of Lake Michigan.

Instead, Chicago really wants to throw the ball around - they want to be as pass happy as a dome team, and I don't get it. When they went to the SB, they had roughly a 50% run/pass ratio - in 07 they were @ 43%, in 08 they were @ 45% (league average is roughly 46%). This is a team with a historically good D, a good RB and terrible WR's, yet they have not played to their strengths. I imagine Chicago wants to be a high-powered O to compete with what they see in Green Bay, and I simply don't understand why.

Had Chicago kept Orton, they could have used some of their picks to improve. consider - available @ 18, they could have had Maclin, Oher, Alex Mack, Eric Wood, Percy Harvin, Hakeem Nicks. There was definitely WR talent available. I don't know how those lineman are doing, but there are multiple game starters avaliable right there. In the 3rd round, the Bears pick was used by Pittsburgh to draft Mike Wallace. I'm not sure whom else the Bears could have been interested in at that point.

Point is, they could have built around Orton, strengthened their weaknesses, and been a decent team. Trading for cutler, IMO, reaks of a OC on the hot seat, blaming the QB for all of the shortcomings, and hoping for a miracle cure brought by a"franchise QB".

Orton, IMO, is everything that a team like Chicago needs.

Two excellent points. I don't understand why the Bears are trying to pass so much. It's maddening and they show no sign of letting up. Secondly, the Bears have a horrible track record when it comes to high draft picks so I'm not to worried about missing out on the next bust.

Angelo became GM in 2001. Here is the list of first round picks since then: David Terrell, Marc Colombo, Michael Haynes, Rex Grossman, Tommie Harris, Cedric Benson, Greg Olsen and Chris Williams. 4 complete whiffs (5 if you count Benson since he's producing elsewhere now), one stud before injuries slowed him down, and two guys who still are in the evaluation process (and Williams had a herniated disc that kept him out last season, an injury the Bears KNEW ABOUT before drafting him). Angelo is lucky Millen was then NFC North for so long because it overshadowed his inability to draft players, especially offensive players. He's had some decent hits with later round defensive guys, but that's it. In free agency he neglected the backup QB position during Grossman's early years, and his attempts to improve the offensive line were signing Omiyale and Pace, each of whom has been benched or needs to be.

Exactly my opinion as well. None of this whole Cutler scenario has made sense based on the Bears' makeup and history.

I would agree that the move was very out of character for the Bears. However, it's not like their history has been that magnificent. One Super Bowl championship and one other Super Bowl appearance seems to suggest that a change was in order. Yes, a team can win with a caretaker quarterback, but it seems teams have a chance to be more successful on a consistent basis with an excellent one. Most of the teams that have won multiple Super Bowls had great ones - Denver with Elway (on the downside certainly but he was a great QB), Dallas with Aikman, the Pats with Brady. I'm not putting Cutler in the company because obviously he doesn't deserve to be there, but if you get the right quarterback, not as many things need to go right for a team to be successful. Other things need to go right, but with a caretaker QB, it seems as if every other piece on a team needs to be in place. I look at the Ravens with Dilfer. They had a young, powerful runner (Lewis), a strong offensive line (anchored by Jonathon Ogden), and a defense that was as nasty as any in NFL history. And that team wasn't even good enough to win their division - they had to go the wild card route, and needed a blocked field goal return and interception return to make the AFC Championship game.In contrast, I look at the Colts this year (not saying they're going to the Super Bowl, but being 8-0 certainly makes it a good possibility). They don't have a strong running game, an offensive line that imposes its will on the defense, and while their defense is a top 10 at this point, it's not one that will win a game on its own. But they have Manning who is fantastic and the main reason why the Colts have been the winningest team in the NFL in the last however many years (9 or 10 - with the Pats 1 game behind).

The Bears have no pieces in place right now. And that's on the GM. The Bears don't show the ability to get better and put their players in a position to be more successful. And that's on the coaching staff.

I would prefer to see them clean house after the season, especially given the coaching talent available. There's Holmgren, Shanahan, and Cowher out there. However, I think Lovie's contract keeps him around for at least one more season. I would love if Holmgren joined the franchise. I remember how he helped turn Favre into a reckless gunslinger into a calculated one. Someone like him, someone who is willing to get in Cutler's face about his mistakes and then help him correct them is sorely needed. If not Holmgren, then Cowher would be great. I refuse to think he would accept the defensive abomination that is the 2009 Bears.

 

[Statcruncher]

To me, everyone is talking about the Bears side of the equation here, but I really think the Broncos did incredibly well in this deal - better than the Bears.

Update?

 

[Joe Summer]

To me, everyone is talking about the Bears side of the equation here, but I really think the Broncos did incredibly well in this deal - better than the Bears.

Update?

The Broncos gave up Jay Cutler, Kyle Orton, Mike Wallace, Anthony Davis, Kraig Urbik, Richard Quinn, and Johnny Knox, and ended up with Robert Ayers.

 

[DiStefano]

To me, everyone is talking about the Bears side of the equation here, but I really think the Broncos did incredibly well in this deal - better than the Bears.

Update?

The Broncos gave up Jay Cutler, Kyle Orton, Mike Wallace, Anthony Davis, Kraig Urbik, Richard Quinn, and Johnny Knox, and ended up with Robert Ayers.

That Josh Daniels is a genius.

 

[DoubleG]

To me, everyone is talking about the Bears side of the equation here, but I really think the Broncos did incredibly well in this deal - better than the Bears.

Update?

The Broncos gave up Jay Cutler, Kyle Orton, Mike Wallace, Anthony Davis, Kraig Urbik, Richard Quinn, and Johnny Knox, and ended up with Robert Ayers.

That Josh Daniels is a genius.

Now see? That's not even fair - Daniels didn't cut Orton, he just traded Cutler and Knox for him.