What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Josh McCown v. Jay Cutler (1 Viewer)

TheCommish

Footballguy
Who would YOU rather QB the Bears? McCown sure seems like a player this year. And he's gotta be cheaper than Cutler right?

 

Limp Ditka

Footballguy
Yes. We're rather certain that a 34 yo Josh McCown would be cheaper than Cutler.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
McCown looks awesome, but Cutler is your franchise - he looked much improved before he got hurt... Having more weapons has been working for Cutler.

 

TheCommish

Footballguy
The numbers thrown around that Cutler would cost seem crazy to me, though. I don't think he's that great, honestly. I would rather draft a QB and groom him while McCown plays next year.

 

Raider Nation

Devil's Advocate
I've always liked McCown, but he's exceeded even my expectations. He looks fantastic. Those weapons don't hurt.

That said, Cutler has special skills. He can make throws that not many people on the planet can make. But is that worth the money he's looking for, when a player of lesser skill is running the offense so efficiently?

 

TheCommish

Footballguy
Cutler will be 31 next year. Has he shown you anything, Bears fans? I'm not a fan, just curious because I wouldn't sign him unless at a reasonable salary.

 

Interseptopus

Footballguy
Yes. We're rather certain that a 34 yo Josh McCown would be cheaper than Cutler.
Jay cutler turns 31 this next April... He's no spring chicken either.Confident signing a 31 year old QB to a 5 year ridiculously expensive deal?

Or, keep your 34 yo QB for another 1-2 years and groom a 22-23 yo to start in a couple years.

Used saved money to beef up that D

IMO, they will resign Cutler because they can't afford to strike out on another QB in the draft and they are in a win now mode with their offense coming together.

If I was GM I'd keep mccown and make sure I don't strike out in the draft and groom him 2 years

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Soulfly3

Footballguy
do they seriously put Cutler back in next week or two when he's healthy?

they couldnt...
It be fun to see if they go back to Jay against the Browns, if they don't I guess it's the end of Jay in Bear town
Theyre in the thick of a playoff push... McCown and his weapons have an amazing connection right now... Theyd be morons to disrupt that for a rusty, hurt and not amazing Cutler.

bears fans? anyone?

 

Raider Nation

Devil's Advocate
Heard a Bears beat writer earlier tonight on the radio. He put it at about 75% that Cutler is back next week. He practiced twice last week. He's going to need to practice every day this week, and if he does, he's playing.

 

Soulfly3

Footballguy
Heard a Bears beat writer earlier tonight on the radio. He put it at about 75% that Cutler is back next week. He practiced twice last week. He's going to need to practice every day this week, and if he does, he's playing.
Trestman loses a chunk of cred with me if that's their move.

 

Raider Nation

Devil's Advocate
Heard a Bears beat writer earlier tonight on the radio. He put it at about 75% that Cutler is back next week. He practiced twice last week. He's going to need to practice every day this week, and if he does, he's playing.
Trestman loses a chunk of cred with me if that's their move.
Trest and McCown have said the whole way that it's Jay's job. That was never in question.

 

Soulfly3

Footballguy
Heard a Bears beat writer earlier tonight on the radio. He put it at about 75% that Cutler is back next week. He practiced twice last week. He's going to need to practice every day this week, and if he does, he's playing.
Trestman loses a chunk of cred with me if that's their move.
Trest and McCown have said the whole way that it's Jay's job. That was never in question.
doesnt matter what's said - it's the wrong move at this moment in time.

 

Kool-Aid Larry

Footballguy
if cutler comes back next week, he throws a terrible pick either inside his own 30 or in the endzone

maybe both

MARK IT DOWN!!!!!!

 

ryno1980

Footballguy
do they seriously put Cutler back in next week or two when he's healthy?

they couldnt...
It be fun to see if they go back to Jay against the Browns, if they don't I guess it's the end of Jay in Bear town
Theyre in the thick of a playoff push... McCown and his weapons have an amazing connection right now... Theyd be morons to disrupt that for a rusty, hurt and not amazing Cutler.

bears fans? anyone?
Cutler was pretty impressive when healthy. I'd make damn sure he's able to play at that level before benching mccown. It's cutlers job. It's good to have mccown. Keep them both next year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Widbil83

Footballguy
McCown runs this system much better than Cutler. I don't wanna see Cutler back (and I've always been a huge Cutler defender).

 

mbuehner

Footballguy
Bears arent going to the playoffs, and if they do they get crushed in game 1. How quickly we forget last week against the horrible Vikes.

McCown is better next week but who cares about next week? Next year, year after is what counts.

 

Sweetness_34

Footballguy
no.... no way theyre going back to cutler
Lol... Cutler is the starter period. Cutler would have done the same thing against these god awful defenses. NFC East and NFC North has some bad Ds. I want Bears to sign Cutler for life and extend McCown by 3 years too. Feels good as a Bears fan to have this studly O. Draft needs to be heavily focused on D and so is re-signing Tillman, Jennings and maybe Melton.

 

LargeMouthBass

Footballguy
You sure about that? I don't know what happened to this guy but he's playing like he's possessed. If Cutler comes back and loses, there will be QB controversy for sure.

 

flapgreen

Footballguy
I actually want McCown In a couple more weeks to lead me to a championship and then bring back Cutty for good. YOU CARE ABOUT MY TEAM

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mbuehner

Footballguy
Bears arent going to the playoffs, and if they do they get crushed in game 1. How quickly we forget last week against the horrible Vikes.

McCown is better next week but who cares about next week? Next year, year after is what counts.
wait...what?
This team is going nowhere this season, so why poison the well with Cutler in his contract year to win a couple more meaningless games? Unless McCown is the QB of the intermediate future?

 

DoubleG

Footballguy
Cutler is more physically talented than McCown - he has a better arm and is more athletic. When both are healthy and playing in Trestman's system, Cutler simply has a lot more upside. Yes, he occasionally takes unnecessary chances and makes high-risk throws. He is also 3 years younger than McCown.

Don't get me wrong - McCown has been outstanding. He has done more than you can ask a backup QB to do. He has had 3 straight 300+ yard passing games. McCown is a better option than a less-than-100% Cutler right now. Keep in mind - you are catching lightning in a bottle right now. Despite 38 starts over 11 seasons, McCown has never had a QBR higher than 75 until now. By comparison, Cutler's first 3 years in Denver his QBR was 85+ (and is 88.4 this season, despite playing with injuries).

The Bears will NOT franchise Cutler. Financially it makes more sense to sign him to a longer term deal (cap-wise) or not sign him at all.

The rest of this season - I'll take lightning in a bottle. McCown is having a career year - let him have it. Moving forward? Give me a healthy Cutler.

 

spodog

Footballguy
Or, keep your 34 yo QB for another 1-2 years and groom a 22-23 yo to start in a couple years.

Used saved money to beef up that D

This.

It's a cut-throat business and Cutler wouldn't be the first to lose his starting spot to injury. There is always a lack of quality QB play and he'd catch on somewhere else, but if I'm the Bears, I'm turning he and his agent loose into the wild and looking to draft someone while riding McCown for a while.
 

Interseptopus

Footballguy
Cutler is more physically talented than McCown - he has a better arm and is more athletic. When both are healthy and playing in Trestman's system, Cutler simply has a lot more upside. Yes, he occasionally takes unnecessary chances and makes high-risk throws. He is also 3 years younger than McCown.

Don't get me wrong - McCown has been outstanding. He has done more than you can ask a backup QB to do. He has had 3 straight 300+ yard passing games. McCown is a better option than a less-than-100% Cutler right now. Keep in mind - you are catching lightning in a bottle right now. Despite 38 starts over 11 seasons, McCown has never had a QBR higher than 75 until now. By comparison, Cutler's first 3 years in Denver his QBR was 85+ (and is 88.4 this season, despite playing with injuries).

The Bears will NOT franchise Cutler. Financially it makes more sense to sign him to a longer term deal (cap-wise) or not sign him at all.

The rest of this season - I'll take lightning in a bottle. McCown is having a career year - let him have it. Moving forward? Give me a healthy Cutler.
Your post raises a lot of eye browsYou say he's 3 years younger than mccown, as if it's a good thing. The main problem people have with mccown is his age. If cutler is to sign a long term deal, it'll likely be a 5-6 year deal. So you get cutler for the next 3 years and then he's "old" like mccown and you're stuck with an expensive old QB.

No one really seems to be looking at this from a cost/production stand point. I look at it like I do at mlb pitchers: how much are you paying per win? Kind of like a "moneyball" approach:

Cutler will cost you probably about 18 million a season?

Mccown will cost... Maybe a third of that?

How many more wins does cutler get you than mccown? Is it worth the cap space for those wins, if there is a difference?

Let's assume 10 wins with mccown and 11 with cutler. You're paying 600k per win if mccown makes 6 million. If cutler makes 18 you're paying 1.6 mil per win. So is it worth an extra 11.6 million for one more win? (10 wins for 1 million more + one more win at 1.6 mil = 11.6 million)

Next year you could get the same production out of your QB for a third of the cost, while grooming a rookie for 1-2 years to take over in the system for even cheaper.

All the while, you have about 10-12 million to spend on a game changer or two on your defense.

If mccown gets you only 8 or 9 wins, and cutler gets you 11 or 12, then yes it's worth it because typically 8 or 9 wins doesn't get you in the playoffs. But mccown sure looks like he can get more than 8-9 wins on a season

I don't know why Chicago would pay the money for cutler. Sure, he's more talented than mccown, but how can you justify paying more per win, only to get maybe 1-2 more wins with cutler. The key is you have to hit on a QB in the draft and you have to be patient and allow him to be a backup for 1-2 years.

As a Packer fan, I'd love for the bears to be salary cap strapped for the next 5 years. They've never really paid their QB top dollar, because they haven't had a good QB in the last two decades-ish. It'll be interesting when they can't keep their defense talent because they have to give their high paid QB the offensive tools to justify his salary. Plus, Cutler always throws the ball to the guys in yellow helmets

 
Last edited by a moderator:

DoubleG

Footballguy
Cutler is more physically talented than McCown - he has a better arm and is more athletic. When both are healthy and playing in Trestman's system, Cutler simply has a lot more upside. Yes, he occasionally takes unnecessary chances and makes high-risk throws. He is also 3 years younger than McCown.

Don't get me wrong - McCown has been outstanding. He has done more than you can ask a backup QB to do. He has had 3 straight 300+ yard passing games. McCown is a better option than a less-than-100% Cutler right now. Keep in mind - you are catching lightning in a bottle right now. Despite 38 starts over 11 seasons, McCown has never had a QBR higher than 75 until now. By comparison, Cutler's first 3 years in Denver his QBR was 85+ (and is 88.4 this season, despite playing with injuries).

The Bears will NOT franchise Cutler. Financially it makes more sense to sign him to a longer term deal (cap-wise) or not sign him at all.

The rest of this season - I'll take lightning in a bottle. McCown is having a career year - let him have it. Moving forward? Give me a healthy Cutler.
Your post raises a lot of eye browsYou say he's 3 years younger than mccown, as if it's a good thing. The main problem people have with mccown is his age. If cutler is to sign a long term deal, it'll likely be a 5-6 year deal. So you get cutler for the next 3 years and then he's "old" like mccown and you're stuck with an expensive old QB.

No one really seems to be looking at this from a cost/production stand point. I look at it like I do at mlb pitchers: how much are you paying per win? Kind of like a "moneyball" approach:

Cutler will cost you probably about 18 million a season?

Mccown will cost... Maybe a third of that?

How many more wins does cutler get you than mccown? Is it worth the cap space for those wins, if there is a difference?

Let's assume 10 wins with mccown and 11 with cutler. You're paying 600k per win if mccown makes 6 million. If cutler makes 18 you're paying 1.6 mil per win. So is it worth an extra 11.6 million for one more win? (10 wins for 1 million more + one more win at 1.6 mil = 11.6 million)

Next year you could get the same production out of your QB for a third of the cost, while grooming a rookie for 1-2 years to take over in the system for even cheaper.

All the while, you have about 10-12 million to spend on a game changer or two on your defense.

If mccown gets you only 8 or 9 wins, and cutler gets you 11 or 12, then yes it's worth it because typically 8 or 9 wins doesn't get you in the playoffs. But mccown sure looks like he can get more than 8-9 wins on a season

I don't know why Chicago would pay the money for cutler. Sure, he's more talented than mccown, but how can you justify paying more per win, only to get maybe 1-2 more wins with cutler. The key is you have to hit on a QB in the draft and you have to be patient and allow him to be a backup for 1-2 years.
Straw man argument. I never said I would pay Cutler $18 million per year for 5-6 years. The questions was which QB, not which QB with price guidelines. In fact, I pointed out precisely what you are arguing for - the part where I stated that the Bears will not franchise him. They need the cap space for defense. They will either sign him to a long-term deal (which should be significantly less than $18/year for 5-6 range) so they can stretch out the cap hit or let him go...which I stated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Interseptopus

Footballguy
Cutler is more physically talented than McCown - he has a better arm and is more athletic. When both are healthy and playing in Trestman's system, Cutler simply has a lot more upside. Yes, he occasionally takes unnecessary chances and makes high-risk throws. He is also 3 years younger than McCown.

Don't get me wrong - McCown has been outstanding. He has done more than you can ask a backup QB to do. He has had 3 straight 300+ yard passing games. McCown is a better option than a less-than-100% Cutler right now. Keep in mind - you are catching lightning in a bottle right now. Despite 38 starts over 11 seasons, McCown has never had a QBR higher than 75 until now. By comparison, Cutler's first 3 years in Denver his QBR was 85+ (and is 88.4 this season, despite playing with injuries).

The Bears will NOT franchise Cutler. Financially it makes more sense to sign him to a longer term deal (cap-wise) or not sign him at all.

The rest of this season - I'll take lightning in a bottle. McCown is having a career year - let him have it. Moving forward? Give me a healthy Cutler.
Your post raises a lot of eye browsYou say he's 3 years younger than mccown, as if it's a good thing. The main problem people have with mccown is his age. If cutler is to sign a long term deal, it'll likely be a 5-6 year deal. So you get cutler for the next 3 years and then he's "old" like mccown and you're stuck with an expensive old QB.

No one really seems to be looking at this from a cost/production stand point. I look at it like I do at mlb pitchers: how much are you paying per win? Kind of like a "moneyball" approach:

Cutler will cost you probably about 18 million a season?

Mccown will cost... Maybe a third of that?

How many more wins does cutler get you than mccown? Is it worth the cap space for those wins, if there is a difference?

Let's assume 10 wins with mccown and 11 with cutler. You're paying 600k per win if mccown makes 6 million. If cutler makes 18 you're paying 1.6 mil per win. So is it worth an extra 11.6 million for one more win? (10 wins for 1 million more + one more win at 1.6 mil = 11.6 million)

Next year you could get the same production out of your QB for a third of the cost, while grooming a rookie for 1-2 years to take over in the system for even cheaper.

All the while, you have about 10-12 million to spend on a game changer or two on your defense.

If mccown gets you only 8 or 9 wins, and cutler gets you 11 or 12, then yes it's worth it because typically 8 or 9 wins doesn't get you in the playoffs. But mccown sure looks like he can get more than 8-9 wins on a season

I don't know why Chicago would pay the money for cutler. Sure, he's more talented than mccown, but how can you justify paying more per win, only to get maybe 1-2 more wins with cutler. The key is you have to hit on a QB in the draft and you have to be patient and allow him to be a backup for 1-2 years.
Straw man argument. I never said I would pay Cutler $18 million per year for 5-6 years. The questions was which QB, not which QB with price guidelines. In fact, I pointed out precisely what you are arguing for - the part where I stated that the Bears will not franchise him. They need the cap space for defense. They will either sign him to a long-term deal (which should be significantly less than $18/year for 5-6 range) so they can stretch out the cap hit or let him go...which I stated.
The OP said who would you rather be the QB, and it specifically mentioned that mccown is cheaper than cutler. So the OP specifically suggested cost is an issue. How can you have this discussion and not bring up cost? That's what this all comes down to. Cost per win. Can mccown win for you? How long? I think you can get 2 years out if mccown Yes, it all depends what cutler signs for. Rumor has it he is looking for a very big pay day. I said 18 million because ~20 mil seems to be the going rate for an "elite" QB or a Super Bowl winning QB. I imagine Cutler thinks highly of himself and will be looking for something close to that.

Even if it's 15 million a season... Still more than I'm willing to pay for him if I have mccown as a backup.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top