jason

At this point I think it makes more financial sense than ever to go forward with McCown and a highly drafted rookie from this year's deep QB class. The real question is whether the Bears can tender Cutler and get a draft pick from someone. If they try that, and nobody bites, then it's a win-win situation and the Bears have two good QBs. The only downside is the financial aspect of it all.

I posted when he fell down after the fly landed on him. It was before he got the receiving TD with absolutely perfect blocking where nobody touched him.

What are the cap ramifications of cutting Bush after the game? Dude sucks. No power, no vision, no purpose. Cut him please.

I can't cheer for him because he's absolutely ruining fantasy football this year.

100% agreed. The key being a Cutler deal that doesn't cash strap us.

Whatever happens, McCown is a must-sign at this point. He's the perfect backup for this system.

I misunderstood your original post. Yes, I agree the experts will get the Cutler situation right and sign him. There is no way they let him walk for McCown and a rookie unless something crazy happens in the draft and the Bears go QB in the first.

Yes, factoring in the OL play is difficult. BTW - I thought many were saying the OL has gotten worse in the past several games? If anything, that would be a positive for McCown. I hate the "experts" inside dig, considering the Bears are currently sitting at .500 and one of those experts thought SMC was a great first round pick (even though 95% of this board disagreed). The experts involved with player selection and advancement with the Bears have been average at best over the recent past. Having said all that, I am with you, and still take Cutler because of the various things you mentioned and the potential. If Cutler's potential is ever tapped, and all things gel within the offense, we could be looking at a 4500-5000yd passing year considering the weapons around him.

For the most part I agree with the points, but playing devil's advocate I thought I'd look at a quick bit of stats. Sure, there are a million things to throw into a calculation like this, but I looked at D/ST scoring (disadvantage to QB's numbers) and turnovers forced by the Bears D/ST (advantage to QB's numbers). Games Cutler - 7, McCown - 5 **Cutler played most of the Lions game, and McCown played most of the Redskins game. Scoring Average Cutler - 27.2, McCown - 26.4 Scoring Average - D/ST Scoring Cutler - 24.2, McCown - 23.6 Scoring Average - D/ST Scoring - Turnovers forced Assume you just subtracted the number of turnovers from the score, indicating the advantage given to the Bears' offense when the Bears' defense gets a turnover. Even though we know the turnovers leads to more than a 1:1 scoring difference. For instance, in the first game Cutler's offense produced 24 points, and the defense got three turnovers. That's 24-3=21. Cutler - 21.7, McCown - 22.6 Scoring Average - D/ST Scoring - Turnovers forced adjusted scoring Since we all know that turnovers result in points, I think it's fair to say we expect on average 3 points per turnover. Some are TDs, some are FGs, and some are nothing. But if the Bears get 3 turnovers, I'd expect something around 10 points from that. So, rounded down it's a FG per possession. (I realize this is debatable) So, ignore the previous category and the subtraction of the number of turnovers, and just calculate 3*(# of turnovers). For instance, in the first game Cutler's offense produced 24 points, and the defense got three turnovers. That's 24-(3*3)=15. Cutler - 16.5, McCown - 20.6 Long story short, Cutler has a much better arm, deep ball, mobility, toughness, and aggressiveness than McCown, but in terms of how they have led the offense to points based purely on the offenses contribution (again, debatable), I'd say McCown has done a slightly better job. When Cutler played he had the advantage of a better defense and more forced turnovers, yet McCown's numbers are very comparable, if not better.

If you're talking about the thing from Breer, that's retarded. I would bet my life savings that Bridgewater goes ahead of McCarron.

Notice he didn't say "transcends schemes well."

Agreed. The "team scored x with QB 1"-type of statement is flawed.

I haven't seen that at all. And there is NO WAY IN HELL he's the #1 QB taken. That's ridiculous. In a year with Bridgewater, Marriotta, Manziel, Hundley, Derek Carr, Mettenburger, and Tajh Boyd, the concept of McCarron being the #1 guy is an impossibility on potential alone, much less collegiate production.

From what I've seen, that label is unfair. He's been on a stacked team, but to me he reeks of Brady in many ways. He's got the arm, the size, the poise, the timing, the accuracy, everything you need to be a successful NFL QB. On top of that, there's his girlfriend. Tell me that doesn't scream "superstar QB."

I think that draft is too defense heavy. I agree that one of the two DBs are probably going to FA, but I see no reason why Melton can't return with a team-friendly deal. My idea draft starts with defense, but fills in a few more gaps as well: HaHa Clinton-Dix FS Alabama Darqueze Dennard CB Michigan St AJ McCarron QB Alabama Bryan Stork C Florida State

Sadly, I think the Bears probably lose three of the next four. Cleveland is the win. That puts them at 7-9, which is Chicago's traditional "middle of the pack"-draft pick, which I hate. I'm guessing the Bears draft around 12-13 range. And that, my friends, would have me laughing. Because the obvious pick is HaHa Clinton-Dix from the University of Alabama. He's

Agreed. Injuries have decimated this team, and there is no replacing three pro-bowlers, particularly when the defense is predicated upon quick pressure from Melton.

Absolutely nobody outside of McCown's immediate family would pay more for him than Cutler. But considering his production compared to Cutler, the prospect of paying a ton less for McCown is worth discussion.

Exactly. And when you factor in the amount of money a franchised QB costs versus a journeyman backup, it's no surprise Bears' fans are talking about the possibility of spending a WHOLE LOT LESS money and getting slightly less productive play. Put it another way, in terms of what might be best for the overall team... Cutler for above average $ > McCown for vet minimum > Cutler for franchise $ Having said all that, I've been a Cutler supporter since day 1, but when a virtual nobody can step in and produce like McCown has, I wonder if the Bears really need to spend franchise money on a QB.

It's an assumption to be sure, but based on his play thus far, it's not illogical. He has been very careful with the offense. He's progressed through reads and taken the smart choice far more often than Jay Cutler has in his time in Chicago. It's obviously a smaller sample size, but if you were to try to put a generic percentage to it, McCown takes the smart throw more often than Cutler does. That doesn't mean he's a better QB, but it does back up the assertion that he might have been aware of the circumstances of that play.

Memories of Garrett Wolfe...the good ol' days. How do you not try at least ONE misdirection play in that situation? Run middle, get stopped. Same formation, fake run middle, toss or QB rollout with dump pass to FB/TE. It works nearly every time.

I understand your skepticism towards the statement, but no matter how one feels about the situation, it's nearly impossible to disagree with the fact that McCown is more heady in this offense than Cutler. Where Cutler reads and the relies on his arm strength, McCown reads, then reads again, making a safer throw more often than not. So it's not completely ridiculous to think that McCown did, in fact, realize he had a free play, and decided to wing it.

That game was a three hour orgasm. I don't care if the Packers are playing the Devil's selected squad with Hitler as the QB; I want the Packers to lose.

Pretty sure I hated the Evan Rodriguez pick as well.

Agreed. I honestly think the Bears should consider moving him to LB.