Alaskan Grizzly

The question should be asked, who is Manning's back up and how well does he run the offense in his absence? Are they (Broncos) playing for playoff positioning vs just getting in the playoffs? Or because they want to just beat the Chiefs? I agree, to an extent, if a player is cleared to play he should play. But there are exceptions already out there (Vick in Philly and Schaub in Houston) where the backups are doing a better job, so they are listed "day to day" or not playing..... or whatever creative excuse they come up with to keep the backup playing. Anyhow, during the game against the Lions the announcer "Moose" Johnson noted that Jay was having trouble moving during half time warmups. I saw the same thing and wondered, as did Johnson, why not allow McCown to play the second half? As Johnson would go on to say later, McCown has not played in such a manner that the staff should question his ability in sustaining the game (if not win it). Couldn't have agreed more.

Sorry but a handful of us said he (McCown) should have started yesterday. So maybe it was Friday night QBing instead (or whatever the antonym is).

Incognito is a cancer. I'm sorry he played in Nebraska.

As much as I have banged on the team for the losses of Lovie and Urlacher, I think they may have done well with Mr Trestman. I'll be the first to admit that he's starting to grow on me. I especially appreciate his unwavering calm and demeanor during the time of crisis. I think about a week or so ago Cutler commented on the same thing. While he was standing on the sidelines during the GB game he was impressed with how calm Trestman was. This is a profound statement coming from Jay in that I think he has put a lot of faith and trust into the coaching staff. Maybe, just maybe with Trestman letting Cutler play as long as he did proved that Trestman was right (assuming he said something during the game) and in the future Cutler is more apt to listen to the advice. All that as it was, I think yesterday's game was one of those deals where no matter what the team was going to lose. I mean really (like Trestman pointed out) in the fourth quarter the Bears scored two TD's without getting any points. One being called back for a holding call (I mean really, how many penalties did Detroit get away with and this Slauson's reach thing resulted in a flag?) and the call with Jeffery going to the ground and not getting credit for his catch. That call reversal epitomizes why it is I hate the NFL as it is today. But the way it is yesterday's game is what it is and its done now. I think we as fans, they as players and more importantly, Coach Trestman all learned something yesterday.

If you read yours and 50 England's commentary it would have indicated your questioning of whether we, as Chicago fans, had the meddle to know whether our team and or players were any good. Asking if "we" were the "stupidest" fans and daring us to challenge the players to play (by your comments). We as fans may not "win" championships, but we DO know winners (and whiners for that matter) when we see them.

The same fan base who's city has a championship in each of the major sporting events; World Series Titles, NBA Championships, Stanley Cups and NFL Championships (notice I pluralized them). Where else can that be said? We really suck. And one final thought on Jay. With his injury perhaps he'll be more P. Manning or Brady like in that he'll be less mobile. More forced to read the field. Just a thought.

....and throw in the fact that if it does in fact cost the game, it loses the chance of first place in the division and solid ground for making the playoffs. C'mon Jay, don't fail us now.

With one exception being Rich Gannon.

Didn't think that, nor do I believe it. In this regard (bolded) you are referring to just the two sample games you chose right? Not the Minny or Det games where he committed three turnovers in each. You would definitely not be in the minority, but I guess not only can you call "moronic" but a "silly" one at that. One last disclaimer before I part: I hope all the best for Jay. I hope he puts up pro-bowl worthy numbers for the rest of the season. Along with that I expect turnovers....SOME turnovers, not many. I hope Jay gets the contract he deserves, with the Bears. And I hope they are able to bring back Josh for the next couple years in his relief. I have seen what Josh can do, and that comforts me. Because IF Jay does fail, we have someone we can rely on to pick up the pieces.

To quote the infamous words uttered by Admiral Isaroku Yamamoto: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant." Maybe I should have left well enough alone because now I fear a whole new debate on how effective Webb continues to be, despite he being on the illustrious Minnesota Vikings. But I digress.... Oh SCS, lest we forget that Cutler was hurt against that very same (and venerable) Defense of Washington you mock. And where not only was he hurt, but before McCown took over, he threw an interception for a direct score. One game does not a season make. And through all this tongue in cheek commentary of yours you forget that McCown did beat the Packers...at Lambeau field...against a normally stout Packers D....who are coordinated by Dom Capers (one of the highest regarded D coordinators in the NFL). But I know, none of that matters.

Or similar to how some might insist J'Marcus Webb was NFL caliber? I don't see the comparison you illustrate but as they say in France; C'est la vie. I agree with you. Perhaps this 'debate' would be put to rest. On the other hand, it may have only perpetuated it. But.......if for no other reason than to keep Cutler healthy, I would rather he (Cutler) wait it out another week. My fingers and toes will be crossed that not only will he excel, but he will stay healthy doing it.

I half expected to get this news (SMC statsus) from Terra Tor, but in jubilation.

Perhaps (bolded) but now I hear McClellin is 'doubtful' for Sunday due to a hammy injury....of course. Anyhow, have to say I don't like the coach in the booth. What does he need to see? He needs to be able to talk to the group as a whole and each individual and find where things aren't working or where they are. They have all those polaroids to see what's going on if he really needs to see from the bird's eye perspective. Coaching is being in the dirt with the guys....or as close as they can be....and work directly with the emotion of the game. Not sitting in the booth doing what I call "Xboxing it".

This is pretty much my point (bolded). You take the 7 (or so games) that Cutler played, in this system and PROGRESSIVELY got better (minus two games with multiple turnovers). However you take a "backup/high school football coach" and insert him and he INSTANTLY showed postive results. I don't care if it was 1.5 to Cutler's 7, that's in fact the issue. Cutler has had MORE opportunity this year to prove himself and should be doing what McCown did in 1.5 games, not 7. Also, some will say Cutler played against "better teams" and "better defenses", I counter with "he's allegedly a top tier QB, he should be that much better". And this is so very true. That being McCown can do what he can do in a shorter span is going to weigh heavily on Cutler's performance. Cutler is Cutler. He has many bad habits that will be showcased, hopefully not, but when he makes that first interception or fumbles that ball....people are going to start wondering 'what would McCown be doing right now'?

Dont have a lot to say on the subject other than to say I like the idea of him being on the sideline. I was reading a Q/A session with Larry Meyer said he did it due to having two rookies in at LB. Although they didn't show anything special most of the rest of the D did. I understand that Coach Tucker intends to be down their again this week. Better production by the D because their coach is actually on the sideline = coincidence? We shall see.

Interesting, this doesn't sound all that dissimilar to what happened to Urlacher last year. Hardball is a game they are quite familiar with.

Hmmm...so you're trying to convince me that if McCown were to continue to play and play well that Cutler's contract discussions would not be affected at all by said performance? I would concede that you make a valid point to the physical health concerns and that being the case puts Cutler in a "damned if he does, damed if he doesn't" situation. But he has a lot to lose in both scenarios.

Ah come on. Its as clear as day. Sure Jay is a competitor but each day that McCown plays and plays successfully is a day less that Cutler can try and prove his worth to the team. And give himself the leverage he may want going into negotiations. McCown may not be a direct 'threat' per se, but he is making it easier to see how well Trestman's system (if it is that) can work with the right operator in place.

Consider me a 'moron' then. The facts are what they are, McCown has looked better, althoughbeit in a lesser amount of games, than has Cutler in his body of work this year. And not only that but McCown has been able to succesfully produce in a shorter period of time than has Cutler. That aside, I really don't want for Cutler to leave Chicago. Like you, I agree that the Bears have not had a high caliber QB like this since maybe Jimmy Mac. But if he continues this "Jekyll and Hyde" thing that he's notorious for, is it really to the betterment of the team? IF he plays this Sunday, my hope (and it is genuine) is that he plays near spectacular and continues that type of play to the end of the year. I for one love the idea of having two consistent QB's being able to play this system and put the team in the category of 'great offenses" (as odd as it may sound). It makes things a lot less complicated as the off season approaches. And Jason for what its worth, I liked the story. It was a little sappy for your style, but I appreciated it nonetheless. And Cracker, you're right. You are crotchety.

Undoubtedly. *Like*

I'm not sure that I was advocating for a "ditching of the starter" necessarily, just that we need to realize that in those "1 1/2 games" that McCown has looked better than has Cutler in the previous 6 1/2. The sample sizes are what they are. As I did with South side, I extrapolated the numbers (some say skewed) to show that Cutler wasn't as effective as a simple #7 rating (or whatever it boiled down to). You can offer up excuses for what type of defenses that McCown faced versus what Cutler faced but I think again you need to consider the defenses that Cutler did face. Of the 7 teams, how many were top tier defenses? Cinncinnati? Detroit maybe NO? Beyond that not a whole lot different statistically speaking. And one thing to consider, not all that long ago GB made it through much of the playoffs (think two years ago) with a much depleted defense. Dom Capers was and is still a very capable coordinator. But speaking more to the "system". I agree most postively. You can practically "plug and play". However, I think the operator needs to be heavily considered when making that choice. So far, and a few here have seen it to, McCown seems to be the better fit than does Cutler. These are very valid points. You are right, if Jay comes back and plays lights out the rest of the season and knowing what we know about McCown, then yes only having to worry about signing both of them to long term deals and drafting a #3 is a good problem to have. However and conversely speaking, if Jay stinks it up, then letting him walk and keeping McCown for 'caretaker' status and spending the money saved from Jay to beef up the defense isn't all that bad a problem either.

Gotta say I like what you wrote here. Well said. You make a compelling 'argument'.

How do explain Alex Smith? He's been described a 'game manager' by many talking heads this year AND is (for all intents and purposes) a franchise QB. His win/loss record is a combined 56/36 (SF and KC). Obviously he's 9-0 this year alone. Edit: Since we're on the subject, how about Gannon? Which category did he fall under? I agree partially that Cutler will be the starting QB IF he proves worthy. However if not, McCown will be (if it means later this year) and/or next year. I say this because I agree with the concept of the team drafting a QB "for the system" and McCown will keep the starting role warm while that player gets up to speed.

All this, especially the bolded. The second bolded part I think is the root of the answer. The 'mentality' to run the system. IMHO, I don't think you need the strong arm to make this form of WCO work. Most of the plays in the WCO scheme are predicated on the ability to make the progressions and complete the quick pass. I'm not going to say that McCown didn't miss opportunities but he made the best of what he was given. In some instances I could have easily seen Cutler try to force something that wasn't there. One shining example was when the Bears were deep in their own territory, McCown recognized that Forte was covered by Raji on the screen. While standing in the pocket and in the endzone McCown instead threw it at the feet of Forte. I don't think Cutler would have done that. He would have instead tried to force it to either Forte, another receiver downfield or tried to scramble. All of which would have probably ended up bad.

So looking at the same source you provided and breaking it down by weeks and individual game performance; McCown rated #2 in week 7 and #4 this last week. The average being somewhere in the top 5. And breaking down Cutler's performance and how he acheived the ratings: Week 1 - Rank 4th - 85.7 Week 2 - Rank 8th - 59.4 (31-30 win over Minnesota...MINNESOTA! Threw 2 Ints and 1 Fumble for direct score) Week 3 - Rank 5th - 86.3 (Pittsburgh game. Two scores by our defense. Cutler was 20/30 159 yds 1 TD) Week 4 - Rank 18 - 36.3 (3 ints and 1 fumble against Detroit - who we play this week) Week 5 - Rank 15 - 62.3 (loss to NO) Week 6 - Rank 4th - 88.9 (Win over the winless NYG)