Alaskan Grizzly

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)

The grip is firm. I have seen a few people use thiis "...there is no film..." arguement and don't understand it. McCown's not a rookie in his first year, he's been playing for 10 years now and a multitude of teams. What is he doing that is any different than before where he's playing different than Josh McCown of the last number of years? If your answer is 'the system' then perhaps its that and not the operator that is different. I would go further and say the operator (in this case McCown) is better than Cutler at running the system(?) "Hyperbole" or fact? That remains to be seen. So how many turnovers has McCown committed...so far? This was more 'food for thought' than anything but as you pointed out, Jay isn't going to change. His arrogance will get in the way, that much is true. So if not a back up, he (Cutler) either becomes a FA or trade bait after this year.

Throughout last night's game there were several references to Rich Gannon and Josh McCown. Most of which equated to the term Jon Gruden made that "McCown has travelled a hard road to get where he is, much like Rich Gannon". Of course Gruden would have some insight since Gannon was his QB during much his tenure in Oakland before going to TB. As was quoted in news sources: "Gannon thrived in Gruden's West Coast offense" (Wikipedia). Coincidently, Marc Trestman was the OC for Oakland during their Super Bowl run of 2004 and a year removed from Gannon's NFL MVP win. The thought now is, could McCown be the newest version of Gannon? I think that a legitimate question. Not that many weeks ago I proposed the idea of replacing Cutler (although be it during the height of one of Cutler's turnover laden games) with McCown only to be told how ridiculous the thought was. McCown shows better poise as does Cutler with pcoket presence and is much more accurate in the regard of a 'true pocket passer'. Watching the WCO as it is supposed to be played, was demonstrated by McCown's play last night. And for that matter during the Washington game. So, what to do with Cutler? IF McCown continues to display a better hand at playing this scheme better than Cutler than the team really has little choice of going away from him for next year. Would he (Cutler) accept a contract as a back-up QB? In that role, could he be able to learn from a player like McCown on really how to properly play in an WCO type offense? Maybe after one year under a player like McCown return as the starter with a better grasp of the offense that Trestman is utilizing? All that being said, it is obvious that Cutler knows his time is now, hence his push to start next week. What will the team do if Cutler comes in and 'loses' against Detroit? What if they win and Cutler doesn't put up the same numbers as McCown? Will the team jeapordize its forward momentun just to give Cutler the chance to prove himself?

Yes but how about that SMC?

Just because... What if the team decided to pull Jay during that first game (of two) with multiple turnovers? Hmmm...

He doesn't need to talk to each player. I agree that before the play starts the coordinator sends in the play based on what more than likely is going to happen on the offense. These "guesses" are predicated on the previous week's film study (of the opposition), scouting and percentage of what they will do. IE: 3rd and long means probably a pass play of some sort. In this case you would probably do a nickel or dime formation. Or if it were 3rd and short you'd stack for the run. Once the play is called into the 'defensive QB' (this case Briggs) he tells the team what it is during the huddle. Oncd they break huddle he's reading the offensive line up to see where shifts are needed, if any. IE: Two wide, one tight, two Back set might mean shift LBs to strong side and bring a corner or safety for the weak side blitz. This type of adjustment is made on the fly (audible if you will) and called out by what the defensive play caller recognizes. These are the things I don't think Briggs is as good as Urlacher was at. The recognition and timeliness of getting the right people in the right spot. If a player is saying 'they need to learn the position' that's true but probably because they recognize Briggs isn't Urlacher.

There actually is some (although beit small) validity to it. In fact a few years ago when Urlacher was lost for most if the season it was observed that the D not only underperformed in Urls absence, but the positioning was not as good. There is no doubt the team misses Url for a variety of reasons, one of them was his ability to recognize and properly align the D. So that being said, what are the alternatives? The other "veteran" LBs have only been with the team for this year and of those one is out for the remainder of it. Bostic and Greene are rookies and Costanzo has been a ST player for most of his stint. The only other 'viable' option might be Tillman (given his seniority and familiarity) but obviously being a CB takes him out of consideration.

Never mind.....

Yeah not a probability especially given his talent. But you never know, teams like AZ are in more 'need' mode than the Bears are so sometimes you can thread something worthwhile together. It was just a thought. Long week until next Monday. I'll be spending mine (week) in SC. Long travel day ahead. Ugh!

That's exactly the concern. He wants to prove himself, which is admirable, but at what cost? He should know if the team would like to keep him around that they can franchise him and give him one more shot at it, or as mentioned previous, give the team a sweetheart deal of an extension. As Daventry pointed out at some point he needs to consider his long term health. He resumed (in my opinion haphazardly) his career after gettting his most recent of concussions so I don't doubt he'll try again here. And Adam hear you on the injury. I had a grade 2 tear of my quad about 2-3 years ago and it slowed me down something fierce. Wasn't really painful but leg was lame for all intents and purposes. From what I hear groin pulls/tears are brutal. Can only imagine.

More or less just throwing it our there but ok, move Peanut to Safety then Peterson to CB. He's multi-dimensional (can do ST returns) and as you said "can get better" at coverage and is "better than our [current] corners". All the more reason to try and make a deal. And I wouldn't think youd need to give up "picks" per se, just one. Most here are suggesting draft a CB anyhow ....

Peanut is the answer. If not I'd like them to entertain the idea of getting a veteran in the backfield. Not really sure why other than having this eery feeling that the rest of the D is going to get young fast. Maybe one of the Cromarties or Rolles? Or make a blockbuster trade for Patrick Peterson and convert him? Also addresss the return duties to replace Hester?

In the spirit of some of the discussions here regarding whether McCown can 'carry the team' (long term - this season) or otherwise. McCown and the playoffs? So if I understand it, the burden is more on Trestman at this point than McCown to produce. Again, the 'operator vs scheme' discussion.

Fair enough. I actually like your anaology better. Especially given the "off" comment. Think of it as a clogged carb type of off.

Lucky, as before its been a pleasure. To see you flummoxed because of a little adversity always humors me. I was all set to continue the back and forth and discuss the rationale of our opposite views, but since "you are done with me". So be it.

First I would like to say how thrilled I am at seeing Jason egging you on. That makes my day. Anyhow, you really don't support your arguement because I was discussing the injury (pulled groin) in particular with this particular player. The history of other players with this injury, even as of late, has proven difficult to rebound from. Throw in the fact that Cutler is 30, has been 'abused' and considered "mobile" could all correlate to him not being the same as he was before. I appreciate that all these other illustrious QB's suffered their varied maladies but that isn't pertinent to the discussion here. The common head cold will affect you and I differrently and assuming we did the same job, perhaps affect how we performed in that job. If you have the flu and I rhumatoid arthritis, again our performances would be affected differently. For the sake of this discussion I am speaking specifically to this injury, that is the point. Emphasis on the bold: Yet Cutler has a HISTORY of concussions. In some cases moreso than do several RB's, TE's and other players. As far as concern in signing Marshall or Jefferies, not part of this discussion and totally different subject. Stay focused. You almost support my point of our earlier discussion by bringing these statements to light. I wouldn't go as far as categorizing it as "criminal" but whatever floats your boat. Ironically, Jason and I have disussed many a times on whether the Oline was deficient in protection or was it Cutler's need for being mobile that caused him to be hit so much. I said that he has always been a mobile QB (Vanderbilt, Denver and Chicago). His point; the oline was always garbage. I will say Cutler has talent, there is no devaluing that. Unfortunately I think time is now his enemy. Oddly enough this very thing (line rating) was discussed in another thread. And from my recollection, the current line didn't fare well. And there is a discussion that the current line is progressively backsliding, to which I would agree. But again, not the point of this discussion. Cutler is regressing. Or at least times he is. Two games this year he had mutliple turnovers (I think at least three minimum). In those two games, against Minnesota and NO(?) two of those turonvers resulted in direct points. The other turnovers were interceptions where in most instances the teams have been inept to convert the turnover to points. But the fact that Cutler continues to have these "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" games make him unpredicitable and unstable to stake long term trust in. That paired with what is clearly a history of injury, could result in his not returning.

As I suspected, you didn't answer my question. Too much hypothesis on my part and the situation at hand. All the rest of your answer is fluff because I won't argue the point that he is a BACK UP QB. I never said he is a starting QB, although he will be when the Bears play next against the Packers. But he's not a true starter....again, I will agree this point. I also never said that I think the team should invest in him as the starter, your words...not mine. The bolded above, are your words. Don't know that I've seen anyone here say what you suggested. I know I didn't. Again though, the fact is he is now the starter.

The injury history HAS to be considered. He is 30 years old and just suffered a relatively significant injury. An injury to other players that has proven debilitating. Maybe not to the point of being an invalid but less capable in their profession. Concussion history is what it is. Cutler has a history, one more hit to the noggin could be the calling card for his career. Some of his other injuries; finger, knee etc by themselves are not factors. But they do add up. And you're right, he has taken a pretty good lickin since playing in Chicago. But what has that done to his overall health? If he pulls an Adrian Peterson-esque return then history (and i) will be flat wrong. And to be frank, id be happy to in this case. Lastly and in regards to his skills. Plain and simple, he's degraded. I dont necessarily agree with the thought of his gradual progression this year. He's turned over the ball a few times in critical moments. A few of them resulting in direct scores for the opposition. That is a problem. He's never been a "Ferrari" per se but more like an Accord with the upper end trim line.

What say you IF McCown has as much if not better success for the time he fills in?