selection7

Marshall's chances were hurt by getting outgained by Alshon, and Alshon's were hurt by having no prior reputation. Forte had some stiff competition. Our D starters watched from the sideline this year.

The article's most interesting point was essentially that the large contract doesn't mean much because so much of it goes to this year and we've got so much cap room this year so why not? 'cause we'll still have plenty to sign all our free agents and still even pursue top FAs across the league. The problem I have with that assertion is it sounds really, really pie-in-the-sky. It just seems like Emery/Stein were totally oblivious of what their bargaining positon was...as in, to the point of incompetence.

Also, you know the other owners are pissed. Emery just shot the pay curve sky-high. There's going to be QBs the next couple of years asking themselves why they shouldn't be paid 50% more than Cutler. Of course, if NFL profits (and salary cap) continue to grow at the current exponential rate, it'll help.

Absolute, mind-numbing insanity. This makes the Romo deal look conservative. 8 straight years Romo has had a QBR above 90...his whole career. Cutler, 8 straight years he's had a QBR below 90...his whole career. I would've said there's not one team in the NFL that would have paid him 75% of that, but clearly I have no idea how a GM thinks, nor how many of them currently reside at Bellevue psychiatric hospital. Now that's out of my system, on the positive side, it's done now. We won't have a QB who sucks for years to come (though we might have a D who does...like Dallas), which is something I still appreciate after having lived through the 90's and 2000's as a Bears fan. Also, whatever happened in the past is meaningless now. If Cutler plays up to his contract, it's all good.

Listen, I'm a OKState Cowboys fan and think 14 is high for Justin Gilbert at CB. Of course, it's a tough position to judge because when you're doing your job well, you don't get much attention, but 2012 was an off season for him and though he rebounded this season, he's not a shutdown corner or a game changer. Late first rounder is more reasonable because at pick 14 you'd hope a blue chip guy falls to you.

Too many pages of comments to read them all, but yes to the above. I'm happy with Cutler's game. If everyone had played as well as him, we'd have won. I'm comfortable with him as our future QB, and we can win a SB with him as our starter. None of that says we should pay through the nose for him though, and that's always been my concern.

I remember years ago some sports show bit where some female reporter was out on a beach with him interviewing him. One thing she asked him was about eventually finding a soul mate or something like that. He answered the question very comfortably, not like he was trying to hide something...not that that means much.

You were right. Not that you'd feel much like gloating, I'm sure.

Two thoughts...at least those stats show we're aways off from being as bad as the Aints (about 1000 yards off, probably, by season's end). I also would put considerable thought into him having run something other than "his" defense. It's a tough call. But the downside was always that if the D looked bad, we still wouldn't know what a "Tucker" defense could do. But we traded that negative for the possibility that sticking with what has worked would keep things rolling along.

...all part of Jerry Angelo's master plan.

Maybe I don't understand you. Why would he make an aw-shucks media ploy, only to avoid pretending to follow through on it or any such ploys in the future and get a deal done amicably? I believe him. He's not in the position where he needs to make ploys. He's going to make some dough if he wants it. My first thought when I heard this was, dang, we've lost a potential QB for the next few years (if he's serious...even if he's not, what GM would trust a guy who talks like that?). My next thought was, dang, Cutler's price just went up. Double-whammy. Also, to add to what Luciano is saying, yeah, we're spending a "high" QB pick either way. McCown is old and unproven over time. But he's also played like one of the best QB's in the league for us, and I see no indications he couldn't play for another half-decade if the talent is there. There's a big difference in how pressing and how "high" that pick has to be this very next year...depending on whether McCown is a reasonable option for the future, and him talking about not wanting to play doesn't sound promising.

Heh, some of you guys are cold-blooded enough to be a GM at least. We've got the best kicker in Bears history, the best or nearly the best in the league, still in his prime, who's 12 of the last 12 from 50-60 and you'd prefer to dump him for a few million and a rook? I'm a big softie I guess. And the #1 thing I like better about pros than college is the roster consistency. If I was a coach, I'd probably get criticized for too much player loyalty. (not to assistant coaches though!)

Actually, I think his point is that assumptions can be off the mark and there are assumptions that both sides are presenting as fact, which is what he meant by wanting to see coaches film instead. But then, most everything on these forums is just speculation. It's the nature of the beast. My two cents is that we need to see Cutler again, so I'm happy he's getting the start. He gets to decide his own fate, to whatever extent is still possible, by trying to play well in a huuuge game and hopefully in the playoffs too. If he succeeds, things will get interesting with respect to his contract negotiations, and if he falls short, it'll come down to what he's willing to settle for...just like I've said all along. I also think some of you may be taking it for granted the ease in securing Josh's services. What if he hypothetically has another great game against Green Bay, then plays decent in the first playoff game and we lose? Matt Flynn started one game in 2010 and got ~7 mil/yr for 3 years. One game! Josh already has the equivalent of 6 starts with ~110 QBR. In that hypothetical situation where Josh plays well overall in two huge nationally televised games, his price will skyrocket, assuming it's not already on its way. And all we get out of it is a playoff loss. (Does anyone think this defense is Super Bowl worthy?) We know Josh can run this offense as a good-value starter. Can Jay be a franchise QB? We're in the middle of seeing right now.

Interesting point, especially if that's true about our LB's. Still didn't look good out there though.

I'm surprised they let Nick Foles stay up that late. He's got to be at school in the morning and he was late for homeroom twice last week.

BearfanNYC didn't say anything but the obvious. Insulting? Not unless you think questioning Cutler being an elite QB is insulting. But either way, certainly not BS. It really will come down to what we see on the field. As for the contract situation, all I hear about is the mega-deal Cutler is looking to get. ...as recently as Billick in last Sunday's game. But let's get real here. We're talking about a QB who has never had one elite season in his whole career, and he's now in his 30's, being backed up by a guy who has outperformed him so far for an extended period of time. I will make this prediction. If Cutler can't play the best ball of his career to finish the season/playoffs, he'll be gone, not because he isn't a better choice than McCown, but because Trestman isn't foolish enough to pay elite QB money to someone who's not when he's got a very real alternative. Will some other team? Maybe. But I bet even then many of you will be surprised. There's a lot of QB talent in this league right now. The market for a "pretty good" quarterback isn't what it used to be. As for what Cutler would settle for in this hypothetical case, I'm just taking everyone's word for it that he won't settle for anything but a contract that is far greater than his body of work has been, which makes predicting the contract situation's resolution pretty easy. Of course, if Cutler continues to play the way he did last sunday, things will be very close, and if he plays better, he will indeed be playing at an elite level and all bets are off.

I know what you're saying, Adam. But that's why we really need to see Cutler these last three games. Like I said a couple of weeks ago, Cutler's play will determine what goes down. If he doesn't play the best ball of his career and still wants to be paid like an elite QB, he's gone. If he does, things get more interesting...because we've still got a awful lot of leverage. I, for one, think Romo was overpaid, and I don't think he sets the pay curve as much as some might believe. Not every owner is Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder. Yes, Romo is earning his paycheck this year, but he's being paid for a whole lot more than one year....and he's still never proved he can answer the call in the playoffs. If Culter wants a mega-deal, he's going to literally have to light it up, and that can only happen if he's given the opportunity. We probably make the playoffs if he does.

Like I said earlier, McCown is on the big stage this week. He's not coming from nowhere anymore. Teams are gameplanning for him now. Let's see what happens.

Hmmm, back-handed compliment. I can't help feeling you're saying that to yourself as a way of justifying your expected conclusion, which is that there's no way McCown could be as good as he's been. Watch the elite QBs. Even with those guys, on the average Sunday, there's no magical pixie dust trailing every pass. When you have a 104 QBR, 9TDs and 1 pick, you are absolutely one of the reasons your team wins when it does. Unfortunately, QBs don't win football games, teams do. For the first time in a while for us, that's a bad thing.

Yeah, if we can bring both those guys back, I'd feel as good about our QB situation as I have in 25 years of being a Bear fan.

We're going to get a chance to see Jay before season's end. That's going to answer a lot of questions. 'Looking forward to Josh's MNF Dallas game too. Having read all the arguments, the negative I most identify with about Josh is that he's only shown success over a short time. Heck, Josh Freeman had a 96 QBR his first full season (his second year). Anyone want him? I bet many of you'd probably put the age thing as #1, but as a general rule, I think people make too big a deal about age. What's important is wear. And Jay Cutler has had triple the number of starts as McCown. What do you think is more important? 4 years older or triple the amount of wear? I'd call it a wash. The thing McCown has going for him that most don't realize is his measureables. He's taller and faster than Cutler, using old combine stats at least. He and Tebow even hold the combine QB record for vertical leap at 38.5 inches. He reportedly (and my eyes confirm it) has decent arm strength, though nothing close to Cutler. He threw a couple of beautiful deep balls last week, though it's his zip on the medium length balls that inform my opinion of his arm. Don't get me wrong, going with McCown is clearly riskier than sticking with Cutler, who has thrown for a QBR in the 80's every year for his whole career...very consistent, so you don't have to worry about his 'floor'. I'm not advocating one over the other, just pointing out interesting observations to show it's good to keep an open mind.

I'm not going to add anything of any value other than to say Trestman made a mistake. Whatever he used to justify it, he needs to rethink. 3rd down is one thing, but 2nd?

I actually thought McCown played maybe a little worse than last week, but having said that, his QB rating was 114, which was only the third best QB rating of this year for him...and he hasn't had a QB rating of less than 91 yet this year. I think a good way to sum up McCown's success is just that he completely buys into Trestman's system. I don't think he's worth as much to other teams as he is to us because of how well suited he is to this offense, so Cutler's got that going for him. One way or the other, it's good for us. Either we've got a capable guy should Cutler walk, or Cutler's price is dropping by the day.

Keep in mind, we still play the Packers. It's in our hands to give them one loss. The Lions losing twice is totally out of our hands. Probably, every NFC North team will have an unimpressive record this year, and whoever is the least unimpressive makes the playoffs.

Yeah, as much as I hate to not root for a Packers loss, the way Adam explains it makes me think it's best if the Lions lose. It comes down to us having beat the Pack, yet lost twice to the Lions...on top of the Lions having a better record than GB.