Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



02 Apr 2009

Broncos Trade Cutler to Chicago

The Denver Broncos have agreed to a deal that will send Jay Cutler to the Chicago Bears. Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com reports that the Bears have sent two first-round picks, a third-round pick, and quarterback Kyle Orton to the Broncos for Cutler and a fifth-round draft pick.

Posted by: Doug Farrar on 02 Apr 2009

210 comments, Last at 08 Apr 2009, 7:29pm by Jimmy

Comments

1
by nibiyabi :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:36pm

"Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com reports that the Chicago Bears have sent two first-round picks, a third-round pick, and quarterback Kyle Orton to the Broncos for quarterback Jay Cutler and a fifth-round draft pick.

The Bears held the 18th pick in the first round of the draft.

Per NFLPA records, Orton is signed through 2009, at a base salary of $995,000."

RE: http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/04/02/bears-give-up-big-package-for-...

3
by Doug Farrar :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:40pm

Thanks!

2
by Yaguar :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:38pm

This is a considerable amount, but I'm actually going to argue that the Bears came off well in this trade.

6
by Catfish84 :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:43pm

You could argue that, but the cost and the inability of the Bears to get him anyone to throw to in the draft needs to be mentioned. Of (smaller) consequence is the fact that most of the Bears' draft prospect official visits this offseason are now useless, so (what's left of) their draft is hampered a little bit more.

That being said, I'm glad the Bears FINALLY addressed the QB position. It only took what, five years, to find somebody capable of running a real offense?

15
by billsfan :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:54pm

In a qualitative sense, I liked what I saw from Devin Hester towards the end of last season. He's starting to do the things a competent WR is supposed to be able to do. Not sure if that's reflected in his FO stats, though.

28
by Vince Verhei :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:15pm

"That being said, I'm glad the Bears FINALLY addressed the QB position. It only took what, five years, to find somebody capable of running a real offense?"

I would argue it's been at least 16 years, going back to Jim Harbaugh, or maybe 21 years going back to Jim McMahon. Other than that, you're picking what? Grossman's flash in the pan? That one good year Erik Kramer had? They've had quarterback problems for a long, long time.

70
by BroncosGuy :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:59pm

Jim Harbaugh was a very solid quarterback, although his years in Chicago were somewhat star-crossed. Jim McMahon, for all of his fame, style, and sizzle, was a really mediocre quarterback. Better than Bob Avellini, sure, but not very good. He did well with the mental aspects, but he had a very suspect arm and just couldn't throw a number of routes. Really, I was there.

No, I'm going with Sid Luckman. Best QB since 1950.

56
by Richie :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:00pm

You could say it's been 60 years since they've had a good QB. I believe Sid Luckman holds the majority of their franchise passing records.

7
by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:44pm

In one sense, I can agree. People tend to overvalue picks. Considering that even first rounders are barely more than 50/50 shots, getting even a good QB for a couple 1st rounders is always a good thing.

That said, I disagree strongly with the general belief of this board that Cutler is a great QB. I honestly believe Cassel will be better over the next 5 seasons. I see Cutler as a guy who has great tools, puts up terrific numbers, but who fails to make the play when all the chips are on the table.

If anything, this is a major coup for Denver to get such a bounty for a player than everyone knew was leaving.

13
by Insancipitory :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:51pm

With Cutler's move to the Bears he joins a team that doesn't need to consider having him pull double duty as a defensive tackle.

17
by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:57pm

I'm not refering necessarily to the defensive futility. Of course it is hard to win when the D is getting blown back 5 yards every play.

But Cutler always appeared to be too emotionally unstable for me. I certainly would never trust him to make the right play late in an important game. Maybe he will learn to harness that energy into something positive, you never know.

I just have never been anywhere near as impressed with him as the people of this site.

I take that back. I was very impressed his rookie season when he came in for Jake down the stretch. I just haven't been so in the past couple seasons.

21
by The Ninjalectual :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:03pm

What league were you watching? That was Jay's WORST season, IMO.

25
by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:05pm

Experience lever relativity. He was damn good for a rookie.

46
by sundown (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:44pm

So, his rookie year was his best in your esteemed opinion?! Nuff said. Thanks for the input. No need to call us, we'll get a rejection letter to you whenever we get around to it.

16
by tyger (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:54pm

Meh, most "everyone" needs a competent QB and if everyone knows he's available then most everyone will be bidding on him. I mean, people get millions of dollars at auction for a Picasso even though "everyone" knows it's available, right? There's a demand side to every supply.

19
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:57pm

Ah yes. I agree. He hasn't got "it". He lags swagger. He's simply not clutch enough.

22
by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:03pm

I am more than comfortable with mathematics and statistics to appreciate the work of this site and the intelligence of the comments.

That said, it is absolutely true that some people handle pressure situations better than others. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone would dispute something so obviously true. I don't like the overall make up of Cutler. Dismiss it if you wish, but I think Denver will ultimate come out ahead on this one.

33
by Mark Shirk (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:21pm

One of the arguments against 'clutchness' is that the biggest hurdle a player has to climb, i.e. the most nerve wracking, is actually getting to the big leagues (I am a baseball guy and that is where i have heard this argument). If you think about it what is more nerve wracking, whether or not you win a title (i.e. 1 vs.2), whether or not your tea makes the playoffs (i.e. what 12 vs. 13 in the NFL) or whether or not you have a job doing what you love getting millions of dollars and setting you and your faily up for life. To me it seems like the third.

Now, it could be different in the NFL where a lot of guys are set up for life before their first snap, but still there is a hurdle you have to climb that is much more nerve wracking for a player than whether or not you win the Super Bowl, which is not a big deal in the large scheme of things.

That is the argument at least.

36
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:28pm

It was partially a joke. But many a true word is spoken in jest. Jay Cutler is the quaterback who has been in the single most gamedeciding situations, where ALL the pressure was on him, the last two years. Sometimes he does an incredible job, like against the Bills in '08 and sometimes he fails like against the Bills in '09. I would have to see some relevant numbers on this, to be convinced that he's not as clutch as anybody. I absolutely acknowledge the excistense of "clutchness" and it's relevance to QB-play. I just don't know in what tier of clutchabillity i would put Cutler.

Regarding who will come out on top: I think it's a coinflip. But consideing that Cutler was this disgruntled, makes Denver seem like the winner here. Even if they kept him, it would'e spelled trouble. I can see this from both sides, though. Chicago has NEVER had a great quaterback, and now they got a chance, and they took it. The price regardless.

38
by Markl (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:31pm

That said, it is absolutely true that some people handle pressure situations better than others. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone would dispute something so obviously true.

This may be true, however, there is a jump from agreeing this is the case to (a) saying it has an effect on performance, (b) being able to detect that effect, and (c) being able to predict that effect.

Absent those three things, you have something more akin to folklore, as it concerns most cogent analysis.

IMO.

42
by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:37pm

Maybe so, but I am sticking with it. ;)

79
by Independent George :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:15pm

Somebody on these boards made the great point clutch (elevating your abilities in pressure situations) probably doesn't exist, but choke almost certainly does - and that what we see as clutch is really the absence of choke. I think that describes about 99% of professional sports, with chokes on opposite sides often negating each other.

I once read an article on neurpsychology that argued that clutch has, in fact, been documented - in policemen and soldiers who described experiencing certain combat situations in a sort of slow motion. In certain stressful situations, the brain actually operates differently as a survival mechanism, allowing the person to act in seemingly extraordinary ways. These situations are extremely rare, though, and it seems unlikely to me that it would happen regularly in a football game, but it's certainly possible.

103
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:44pm

Comparing policemen and soldiers to football players is a bit of a mistake: NFL players who don't play well under pressure have already been selected out. They don't make it through college, and if by some miracle they do, they flame out fast. There's no such selection effect for policemen/soldiers.

159
by Independent George :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:01pm

There is for soldiers, particularly for combat specialties.

175
by Pat (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 4:05pm

Yes, but I doubt those are the ones that were being studied. Mainly because I doubt they'd be allowed to.

132
by Noah of Arkadia :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:02am

C'mon guys! I can't believe so many of you don't believe that some people perform better under pressure than they usually do, and some perform worse. You don't need no bloody psychological experiments to tell you that. All you need is to live a little.

I honestly can't believe none of you have been involved in a pressure situation and experienced for yourselves how you either consistently crumble or thrive. Whether you can measure or predict it is irrelevant. The point is, it's real as pancakes, and therefore, people are going to talk about it. People with warm, 100% natural blood, that is. So get off our backs! :P

152
by Markl (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:33am

C'mon guys! I can't believe so many of you don't believe that some people perform better under pressure than they usually do, and some perform worse. You don't need no bloody psychological experiments to tell you that. All you need is to live a little.

If it's so real, it should be easy to measure. I'm not saying it does or does not exist, but your argument that it's so obviously makes lack of meaningful measurement even more perplexing.

Then again, maybe my comments just aren't clutch enough.

171
by Noah of Arkadia :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:18pm

"If it's so real it should be easy to measure".

Nope, it's very, very hard. It starts with a definition of potential "clutch" situations. If they could be defined, then we could measure the exact performance of each player as compared to their usual performance. But I don't believe such a definition is possible. It's the same problem as with "comeback wins".

Then again, so many things that are real are so hard or even impossible to measure, that I don't understand the disbelief. Even in football. Can we measure the effectiveness of a coach, for example? As far as I know, there's no DVOA for coaches, and yet we all believe they have a substantial effect on team and individual performance.

More to the point: the performance of coaches in late game ("clutch") situations is famous for being uneven -and it can't be measured, either. But QBs are somehow different? I don't get it.

Not that I'm saying Cutler is or isn't good under pressure. It's just that skepticism on this whole subject baffles me.

195
by Dales :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 7:28pm

Oh, it is really easy to measure. I am about as far from clutch as you can get when it comes to sports. My free throw percentage is about 20% less when people are watching.

There may not be an easily measurable clutch/choke effect in top-level athletics, though, because the chokers have long been screened out and just about everyone there is clutch to some extent.

197
by AlanSP :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 8:57pm

Yeah, now we just need to measure how Cutler does when people are and aren't watching. Except that, you know, people are always watching.

Different players may or may not handle pressure better than others, but in order to even begin an attempt to answer this, you need to define what it would mean for someone to be good/bad under pressure.

The problem is that you need to distinguish whatever effects you're looking for from stuff that you're not looking for. Did that basketball player miss that free throw because he "choked" or was that simply one of the 25% that you expect him to miss because he's a 75% free throw shooter? You need a lot of free throws in different situations to find out (and even then the best you could say is that he tends to do worse in certain situations by a certain amount).

198
by Dales :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 9:51pm

"Yeah, now we just need to measure how Cutler does when people are and aren't watching. Except that, you know, people are always watching."

Not exactly my problem, you know?

My points are that the evidence is pretty conclusive that there is no statistical evidence of a clutch factor in pro football (or baseball). That there isn't does not prove that the ability to be clutch doesn't exist- just that it doesn't seem to exist in the NFL or MLB.

If you want to extend it beyond that, well, good luck.

199
by AlanSP :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 11:49pm

Totally agree, although I might phrase it a little differently (you can never really prove a null hypothesis, so the best you can say is that if there's any "clutch factor" in the pro game, it's too small to detect).

102
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:41pm

That said, it is absolutely true that some people handle pressure situations better than others. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why anyone would dispute something so obviously true.

Because the people who don't handle pressure situations don't play in the National Football League. Or at least, not as long as Cutler has (which is only a few seasons).

What's a "pressure situation"? Down 7 in the fourth quarter in a playoff game? Fans might feel pressure there, but why would a quarterback? He's a QB of a playoff team, playing another great team. The coaches aren't going to fault him if they lose. What about just late in a game when the team's losing? Well, if the offense is struggling and the QB is playing poorly, maybe - I mean, that's his job, and he'd have to be stressed in that situation. But it's not like Cutler's ever had that problem.

You want a "pressure situation" for an NFL player? Try training camp. Or playing as a rookie. Or playing poorly. Seems to me that Cutler passed that test fine. The "emotionally unstable" guys flame out in no time flat, with Ryan Leaf the prime example.

104
by tuluse :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:57pm

I still think clutchness exists. Sure every NFL player can handle pressure, but some still handle it better than others. Just like every trait. I mean being a kicker is all about handling pressure (and if you think players don't feel pressure read A Few Seconds of Panic).

I do think you raise a good point that there are two aspects of being clutch. 1) whether or not a player even feels the added pressure, and 2) how he deals with it.

Another great example of a player who couldn't handle pressure is Grossman. Plus, he seemed under a great deal of pressure pretty much every down (post Cardinals game in 2006). Not only was he bad at dealing with pressure, he seemed to feel more of it than the average QB. For the record this is all based on reading body language (and watching fumble snap after snap), and I don't have a degree is psychology.

113
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 4:44am

You're overusing "pressure" here - Grossman's problem in 2006 wasn't psychological stress, it was quarterback pressure (and the fact that he actually faced NFL defenses). Obviously there are quarterbacks who can handle pressure from pass rushers better than others, but you don't have to explain that with psychology. It's just intelligence (knowing where to go with the ball), experience (understanding how timing changes with a rush), and mechanics and footwork. Grossman was deficient in all three, so it's not particularly surprising he struggled.

(and if you think players don't feel pressure read A Few Seconds of Panic).

I never said they don't feel pressure. What I said was that if they can't handle it, they wouldn't be in the NFL. A Few Seconds of Panic was written by a reporter. Of course he felt pressure. He wasn't a football player.

And while there may be players who can handle it better than others, the selection effect of making it to the NFL means that the difference between the "best" and "worst" is almost certainly very, very small. Players who actually perform worse during game situations due to pressure would never make it there in the first place. They don't go hiring NFL players off the street.

158
by Independent George :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:58pm

Pat, I normally agree with you, but I think you're overlooking two possible variables:

1. It seems as if you're treating pressure as an either/or situation, and that it remains constant. It seems conceivable to me that a person can be a superior athlete whose talents compensate for choking at one level, but not the next. Or, that a person feels more, or less, anxiety in different types of situations that look the same on paper.
2. The possibility of a dual-choke. It's entirely possible that a QB chokes and makes a bad throw to a receiver, but the DB chokes at the same time and breaks for the ball too early, leaving him out of position.

185
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:02pm

It seems as if you're treating pressure as an either/or situation, and that it remains constant. It seems conceivable to me that a person can be a superior athlete whose talents compensate for choking at one level, but not the next.

Sure, but think about what you're suggesting here : A guy is far more talented/athletic at the college level, and so even though he doesn't handle pressure well, the reduction in his abilities still leaves him more athletic than his opponents and able to beat them.

This means that either this player, under pressure, is 1) still able to compete at an NFL level (better than college opponents), or 2) he's playing at a very low level of competition (say, at a Division II school).

In situation 1, would we really call that choking at the NFL level? The guy plays outstanding sometimes, and then "average" (but NFL average) under pressure. That player would experience a better-than-average run of success, and I don't think most people would call him a "choker". I dunno, though. I'd still take that QB any day of the week, though!

In situation 2, I don't think it's that likely that the player would make it into the NFL, and even if he did, it's unlikely he'd be safe enough in his position to not be stressed out during training camp - at which point he'd flame out.

Or, that a person feels more, or less, anxiety in different types of situations that look the same on paper.

Sure, look - you can always invent guys that have screwed up personalities. I'm not saying that everyone on the planet thinks this way. But I'm saying the vast majority do, which means any "clutch" or "choke" players are far, far more likely to be figments of the fan's imagination than actual psychological effects.

194
by Mr Shush :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 12:51am

"In situation 1, would we really call that choking at the NFL level? The guy plays outstanding sometimes, and then "average" (but NFL average) under pressure. That player would experience a better-than-average run of success, and I don't think most people would call him a "choker". I dunno, though. I'd still take that QB any day of the week, though!"

Isn't that exactly what people were suggesting when Peyton Manning was accused of being a choker? And yes, I certainly would take Peyton Manning any day of the week, but I'd rather have Joe Montana*.

Moreover, I put it to you that no-one really feels pressure if they are utterly confident of success. The feeling of pressure which can (it is argued) lead to choking stems, in my opinion, from self-doubt - or rather can only arise where self-doubt is present - and the basis for that self-doubt need not be rational. I find it very easy to imagine a player whose superior talent enables him to succeed easily, and never really worry about the possibility of not succeeding, at the college level, but who finds himself thinking about the result of the game instead of the next play at the NFL level and therefore fails to execute - even though he has the talent to succeed in the NFL. And as that suggests, I believe that mechanism for choking is thinking about consequences rather than focusing on the play. So for choking to take place, it seems likely that the requirement would be important consequences, and genuine concern on the player's part about his ability to get the right result. So a player who never chokes in the regular season might choke in the playoffs - perhaps he worries because he's played badly in big games before, even if that was not the result of choking. Perhaps he chokes because he's worried he'll choke (I'm pretty sure that happened to Tim Henman at times). And a player may be able to overcome his propensity to choke, generally or in response to specific situations - perhaps through finding ways to better manage his concentration - achieving this sort of change is a large part of the job of sports psychologists. Equally, a player who never previously choked may develop a propensity to choke - perhaps because an injury undermines his self-belief.

I believe in choking. I believe Charlie Hodgson can kick for Sale and in internationals against crappy teams but not against good ones because he is a big, giant pussy. I believe Martin Johnson knows this, which is why Hodgson will never play for England while he is in charge. I believe Mark Ramprakash could destroy international bowlers in county cricket and then fall to pieces against those same bowlers in a test match because he couldn't cope with the weight of expectations, and that the runs dried up for him when he was on 99 career first class centuries because he kept thinking about what it would be like to have a hundred and worrying that he might never know instead of working out whether the next ball was going to be a bouncer or a half-volley. I believe that different players - including those players who are different in virtue of being the same person at different times - choke in different situations, and that predicting which situations those will be is nigh on impossible, which is why any systematic attempt to measure choking is doomed to failure.

*Please, please do not interpret this as a reference to The Thread That Shall Not Be Named. Montana is not Brady. This preference on my part is not irrational - I could link, for example, to a study on PFR which finds Montana the most valuable quarterback of all time. And it's not integral to the argument anyway.

136
by Noah of Arkadia :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:12am

Pressure is relative. For us, maybe, NFL players live in a constant state of pressure and therefore are used to it, but I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between pressure to make the team -which is probably pretty big-, and pressure in a game situation, in the last 2 minutes, with you as the main man (aka the QB), with hundreds of thousands of people screaming and millions more watching, including all your friends and family, and your enemies too, and everything you've worked so very, very hard not only for many months, but for years, on the line.

Now that's pressure

140
by Eddo :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:40am

You're not wrong, Noah, but the whole reason this argument is taking place is that some people were saying Cutler isn't as good as his numbers because he's not "clutch" or whatever. The truth is that any non-clutchness that Cutler has is already showing up in his numbers. That's the bottom line here.

167
by Noah of Arkadia :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:07pm

I'm not sure the numbers exist to measure that quality, but I'm definitely not making any statements about Cutler. I've hardly seen the guy play.

I do believe the position that "clutchness" does not exist at all is a reaction against the broadcasters and journalists overusing it and turning it into something meaningless.

186
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:04pm

and pressure in a game situation, in the last 2 minutes, with you as the main man (aka the QB), with hundreds of thousands of people screaming and millions more watching, including all your friends and family, and your enemies too, and everything you've worked so very, very hard not only for many months, but for years, on the line.

Except NFL players experience that before the NFL. It's called college. Oh, and there? Their performance determines whether they're set for life or if they have to find a new career.

I find it hard to believe that's less pressure.

191
by Noah of Arkadia :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:54pm

They do experience that in college, and no, I don't think it's less pressure. But what's the point? (We are talking about end-of-game situations here, right?) But it's not like coaches and scouts only look at the last 2 minutes of games when deciding who to draft, right?

I mean, this is, after all, a non-measurable skill, and it's not like everyone agrees it even exists. So it's not that hard for players with weaker character to fool the system. For some reason, it seems that QBs are nerdier than other players and more susceptible to be drafted high regardless of of how fluffy they may be.

Cue Giant sigh of relief from NY.

26
by Kaveman :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:12pm

Well, you may disagree strongly with this board. But you are also disagreeing strongly with the stats (both conventional and advanced) and many NFL teams' talent evaluators. Which you are perfectly entitled to do, of course.

However, you do not substantiate your statement that Cutler fails to make the play when the chips are on the table. The facts are that last year, Cutler was 3rd in the NFL in 3rd down efficiency, converting 47.5% compared to the NFL average of 39.5%. In the 4th quarter of games, he completed 100 of 167 passes for 1212 yards and 11 TDs with 4 INTs. He has at least six and maybe seven 4th quarter comeback victories. Three of those were in Nov/early Dec last year. All of this with a sieve for a defense and a #1 receiver with a case of the dropsies.

Still, we are all allowed our opinions. I don't think this was a major coup for Denver. To get less for him when there were literally ten teams calling to ask about him would have been stupidity. Even dumber than trading him in the first place. Oh wai...

40
by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:33pm

You are correct. For better or for worse (and it will be assumed for worse until proven otherwise, as it should) I have little but anecdotal evidence to support my position. I do subscribe to the belief that, while aberrations like 2000 Balt do occur, the QB is by far the most important position on the field. I genuinely believe that the demeaner of a QB impacts his team's ultimate success, and I haven't liked what I have seen from Cutler the times I have watched Denver games (which I will admit aren't quite as many as some other teams).

Yes, I know I am bringing non-Football Outsiders thought into the equation, but I genuinely believe it.

41
by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:35pm

You are correct. For better or for worse (and it will be assumed for worse until proven otherwise, as it should) I have little but anecdotal evidence to support my position. I do subscribe to the belief that, while aberrations like 2000 Balt do occur, the QB is by far the most important position on the field. I genuinely believe that the demeaner of a QB impacts his team's ultimate success, and I haven't liked what I have seen from Cutler the times I have watched Denver games (which I will admit aren't quite as many as some other teams).

Yes, I know I am bringing non-Football Outsiders thought into the equation, but I genuinely believe it.

92
by Kaveman :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:35pm

No doubt, the demeanor of the QB is important. However, as you have admitted that you don't really follow the team, I fail to see how you can make any meaningful judgment. Especially since the folks who DO follow the team are aware that multiple teammates have said that they think Cutler is cool and calm in the huddle, even after he's made a bad play, and they always feel like he believes they can win.

So whatever.

44
by Jmagic (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:39pm

So... you think that 3 years of increasingly more solid numbers, and small sample size for "games that matter" or whatever doesn't indicate Cutler is that great, but you'll say that Cassel will be better over the next 5 years based on... what? I won't add the million sarcastic options I can come up with, but seriously, who the hell is Matt Cassel?

48
by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:48pm

I realize I am out on a limb here about Cutler. I certainly don't have every bit of info and I haven't watched every one of his games. I just haven't like the ones I watched, which I admit are a rather small sample size.

However, Cassel I do have a lot more info on, seeing that I've seen just about every snap the guy has played. If you want to mock my assessment of Cutler, go ahead, but Cassel is absolutely the real deal. I will be shocked if he isn't a bona fide top 5 QB in this league within the next couple years.

55
by Jmagic (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:58pm

Fair enough. But let's see how well he plays without Moss, Welker, the Patriots O-line, the Patriots defense (how many times did he have to play from behind), or the Patriots culture. I've seen the two QBs equally. I think that Cassel's upside is about the same as Orton's, maybe a bit better since he hasn't been stunted by playing behind jackasses and bad coaching.

60
by MJK :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:26pm

Last year, having the Patriots defense wasn't exactly an asset (maybe it was compared to Denver or Detroit, but not many other teams). And the Pats non-QB players weren't as magically unstoppable last year as they were in 2007. Moss was dropping balls he was catching in 2007 (dropped balls may have cost them the game in San Diego, and a couple of other times during the season), the O-line was injury plagued throughout the season, especially at RG and RT, the running game was at best "all right", and the secondary was a seive. Granted, some of the offensive downturn was due to Cassel, but not all of it.

The think I like about Cassel is that he showed a dramatic and steady improvement throughout the year. And I've now seen him lead two or three very exciting come-from-behind drives to tie the game at the end of regulation. He may not be as good as Cutler, but he can succeed.

71
by Big Johnson (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 8:12pm

"dropped balls may have cost them the game in San Diego, and a couple of other times during the season"

chargers 30
patriots 10

banana hands made 0 difference in the outcome. that is unless if the patriots had T.O. lined up opposite of braylon edwards.....

130
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:49am

The Pats played the NFC and AFC west last year. Cassell had an above average year against a terribly below average schedule.

62
by Karl Cuba :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:33pm

OK, I get it. Fantastic schtick! You had me going there for a while.

That Cutler, who has been extremely productive but failed to win because of his slap-stick style defense is worse than Cassel, the king of the six yard pass to Welker is one of the funniest lines I've heard for a while.

It's good that you call yourself anonymous, brave too. I'd have suggested Casseljoe.

170
by Yaguar :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:12pm

Ha, it does not surprise me at all that you're a Patriots fan.

72
by Kevin Eleven :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 8:20pm

Classic "good trade for both teams". The Bears get the QB they've needed forever, and the Broncos make the best of a bad situation by getting two firsts and a player for a guy they HAD TO trade.

83
by El Nino Meon (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:31pm

Cutler's proved himself to be an at least above average quarterback. It can take years of failed attempts to get one of those. The Bears got a bargain....assuming that Cutler is a professional and that his feud with McDaniels is only indicative of a dislike of McDaniels

The Bears are a force to be reckoned with now. That said, Orton isn't a bad player to have along with a decent offense and 2 first round picks.

106
by MilkmanDanimal :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:00am

Yes, the Bears are a force to be reckoned with. Ignore the lousy WRs, so-so offensive line, and aging defense. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, look at the shiny new QB.

125
by Jimmy :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:25am

I don't have a problem with the Bears offensive line after the Pace signing, they have three tackles, three guards and two centers. None of the guys projected to start are poor players and there should be depth should injury occur. I don't really want the Bears to use any of their remaining top three picks on an offensive lineman as they probably wouldn't make the roster.

The defense really isn't as old as you seem to think it is, there are only two starters (Urlacher and Ogunleye) who are particularly old, and both are still playing pretty well. Urlacher might not be the player he was a few years ago, but he is still better than 80% or 90% of the MLBs in football and was still good enough to take over games at times last year. The Bears defense has been getting thrown straight back onto the field for year after year and finally might have an offense to take some pressure off, teams might even be forced to play catch up without the defense and special teams having to score points. Urlacher and Tommie Harris should benefit as much as any player on the Bears from having time to recuperate during a game.

Yes the Bears do need to find a split end but do have several legitimate targets in the passing game already. Hester might turn into a monster with Cutler throwing him the ball (he was pretty good at the end of last year even though Orton couldn't really step into his deep throws because of his bad ankle). Olsen is a very good and versatile TE and Des Clark is still handy. Forte is probably amongst the top five pass catching backs in football and should benefit from the decreased attention to the running game anyway. Yes another WR would be nice (calling Torry Holt) but the Bears offense should be failry decent anyway.

4
by poboy :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:40pm

If Cutler continues to play at a Pro Bowl or near-Pro Bowl level, this is a good deal for Chicago.

10
by Rochbear (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:49pm

I agree. Big 'if' on continues Pro-bowl level. Big if, big trade, big gamble by the carefully calculating GM Angelo, .... I like (as a Bear fan).

5
by dsouten :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:42pm

Oh thank Jesus I really thought the Redskins were gonna go through with it.

68
by The Ninjalectual :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:54pm

[Washington fan living near Denver]

I was just discussing this possibility before the trade went through. I agree, I would much rather stick with Campbell than experiment with Cutler.

Campbell has shown signs that he could be a great NFL QB... but he's lacking something. I can't quite describe what that thing is. The Redskins have been great at moving the ball down the field, but can't seem to score touchdowns, especially through the air. Why? Does Campbell lack arm strangth? I don't think so. He seems very laid-back, perhaps even too casual. Can we say he lacks a killer instinct? Maybe, but that's borderline "swagger." Whatever it is, I am glad we are sticking with Campbell.

144
by dsouten :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:57am

There's no question that Cutler is a better QB, but with holes on our team it would seem pointless to get a superior QB and then have no draft picks to keep the rest of the team from crumbling around him.

Also - forgive the subjectivity - I just plain LIKE Campbell and think he deserves a second year with Zorn. His contract is up so this is his last chance, but I'm glad he's getting it.

196
by Dales :: Sun, 04/05/2009 - 7:38pm

I've been one of Campbell's biggest doubters on the FO boards-- not in Chris' league, but beyond that...

I still don't think he will pan out the way you or Barnwell think. However, reading how Campbell reacted to the Skins' efforts to land Cutler, I have newfound respect for the guy-- more than I ever developed for him while he was at Auburn. I'll be rooting for him from here on out, as much as a Giants fan can for a Redskins quarterback.

I'll absolutely be hoping he ends up being twice the quarterback from here on out that Cutler is from here on out.

8
by Kaveman :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:45pm

Well then! That's pretty much that. Could've been worse for him. And I'm sure this is going to make Packers/Vikes fans REAL happy... :->

And the Broncos get Orton plus draft picks. And all the eagerness I had when looking forward to this season, thinking that the defense just HAD to improve, and how far into the playoffs Denver would get... all that excitement is now gone.

Shanahan gone. Cutler gone. Brandon Marshall had hip surgery and is out until the regular season I think. And then he'll be suspended for some time. Of course, the defense is all fixed, now that we have Brian Dawkins back there.

*sigh*

I think I'll start following another team. The Bears maybe. Or the 49ers... I always loved San Francisco.

12
by Anonymous1 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:50pm

Don't fret. Denver will be better soon. This whole escapade displayed the fact that your (prior) QB didn't deserve your loyalty anyway.

14
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:51pm

Cheer up emo Bronco fan...you do get one half of the famed Windy City quarterbacking duo known as Sex Beard.

37
by Harris :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:31pm

Think of it as one step back to take two steps forward. They can use all these new picks to improve the defense this year, then use their two #1s next year to possibly trade up in a deep QB draft.

Hail Hydra!

189
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:29pm

I'm guessing his problem is that it looks like one giant step backwards, when they were already only a small step away from a playoff team, and that "giant" step backwards was taken so that a guy who he probably has no trust in can attempt to make two steps in a random direction.

Denver had the makings of a sustainable, top offense for the next several seasons. Yeah, the defense sucked, but bad defenses can become average defenses with a little health, luck, and a draft pick or two.

I really have no idea how people are defending Denver's actions, or saying they'll be better off in the long run, other than people just don't like guys they perceive as "whiny."

Could Denver come out okay from all this? Sure. They could also flame so violently that they're the new 49ers of the AFC. The problem is what I mentioned earlier: in order to believe Denver will come out okay, you have to believe that McDaniels is capable of making an average defense and acquiring players with those draft picks who will be good players.

90
by JoRo :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:28pm

That's how I started to feel when the McDaniels thing started falling into place. I started to feel just jaded about the team. I was excited when he got to Denver, but now I just don't know what I feel about the team. I like Eddy Royal, but this isn't the team I have loved the last three years.

Are fans allowed to become Free Agents?

9
by Joe T. (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:47pm

Interesting trade...I'm a little disappointed that Danno didn't pull it off, but I think in the long run Washington will be better off looking elsewhere (cough *Brennan* cough). He doesn't seem to be a consensus franchise QB, the media keeps dropping "Pro-Bowler," but Trent Dilfer was a Pro-Bowler once upon a time. Plus, I'm not sure Cutler had the maturity required to be a franchise QB.

Denver makes out pretty well I think in the end, 2 first rounders, they can take a QB this year or next, plus Orton, who I think can certainly hold down the fort. Plus, Chris Simms gets a much-deserved second chance at starting. Should make for an interesting season.

11
by MilkmanDanimal :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:49pm

Two firsts, a third, plus someone who proved to be a serviceable QB without anything resembling a receiving corps . . .

Anyone want to call Herschel Walker and let him know he now has company in the "WTF Trading Hall of Fame"?

24
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:04pm

Agree. My fantasy-draft-steal alarm has gone off. Orton will be on my team in 2009. Up until his injury, he looked decent with Greg Olsen to throw to. He now has 4-5 recievers better than Olsen. Plus an O-line. Plus what figures to be quite a good head coach... At coaching QB's at least.

47
by Jmagic (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:46pm

Um... let's say it had been one first and a third. I doubt people would freak out so much. Kyle Orton is alright. I lived in Chicago for a while until last year and still watched several Bears games last year. He's alright. His upside is being a top 15 QB in this league. Cutler's is being a top 5. If you don't think that that differential matters, contact approximately every recent Super Bowl winner with the exception of ones who won with freakishly good defenses.

52
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:54pm

I'm not saying that he's the guy to win super bowls with, but he's definately good enough to play a couple of season while a new young guy is getting groomed.

If a high school QB can step into the best offense ever, and look decent, then a guy with NFL experience can step into a top-5 offense and look decent. The coach in common, even...

58
by TomC :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:15pm

Herschel Walker?! HERSCHEL WALKER?!!

Minnesota gave up 3 firsts, 3 seconds, and five active players for a guy that only touched the ball 25 times a game.

67
by Cabbage :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:53pm

Agreed. As far as I'm concerned, this trade is even less-risky than the Gruden swap.

141
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:42am

And tried to stick him into an offense that wasn't awful but wasn't designed to use him well. The Bears can give up on any system and fit it to Cutler. The Vikings couldn't blow up their O and fit in Herschel.

18
by Waverly :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:57pm

It seems like Denver got more than I expected, but I think it's hard to judge. I have a hard time comparing this deal with earlier trades.

I suggest a retrospective article about major trades involving QBs, with DYAR values (before and after) of the players involved, including the players chosen with the draft picks.

20
by MarkV :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 5:58pm

wow, this is a mini-disaster for Denver to end a disastrous off season.

the picks are decent, but denver is a worse team for this move.

McDaniels is also definitely either going to sink or swim on this.

23
by MilkmanDanimal :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:03pm

I would have said mini-disaster before I saw the details of the trade, but I'm of the opinion Denver utterly mugged Chicago on this one. Orton wasn't bad last year, and Denver's O-line and receiving corps are both significantly better than Chicago's. He doesn't have anything resembling the physical ability of Cutler, but he can certainly play for a year or two and I think do pretty well (assuming they don't get down to their sixth-string RB again).

Cutler leaves Denver and the comfort of Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal, instead going to Hester and whichever members of the custodial staff willing to wear a jersey that starts with "8" each Sunday. The expectations will be through the roof, because he's eaten up big chunks of the next two drafts.

Denver suffers short-term, but as awful as their defense was last year, does it really matter? Were they going anywhere this next year? I mean, the D SUCKED, and it'll take a year or two to rebuild it. Orton gives them something serviceable to carry through that period.

122
by Sophandros :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:13am

Cutler has a great relationship with Earl Bennett, from their time together at Vandy. Don't discount the chemistry between a WR and QB...

-------------
Sports talk radio and sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.

30
by The Ninjalectual :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:16pm

After years of defending Shannahan, I lost hope in him for pinning his career on Cutler's shoulders. Sure, Cutler has turned out to be a good NFL QB, but even then the Broncos had other holes to fill. Jake Plummer was doing just fine at the time.

96
by Kaveman :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:46pm

Oh please! When Plummer was benched after the 11th game of 2006, he was ranked 28th in the league in DYAR, with a -8.1% DVOA. He was NOT doing just fine: everyone and his dog knew that if you kept him in the pocket he was a ~50% passer. Please put this Plummer-love to rest.

73
by MilkmanDanimal :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 8:32pm

I could actually understand this kind of a trade if it was, say, Minnesota involved, because you can make a reasonable statement that the Vikings are a QB away from serious championship contention. The Bears aren't. It's not like Cutler makes them an elite team. The defense is getting old, they have no receivers, the line is questionable . . . why?

76
by Eddo :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:01pm

It still makes sense. It's not like Cutler only has a few-year-window, like Kurt Warner, Jeff Garcia, or even Peyton Manning would have. No, Cutler will be the Bears QB for the next ten years, at least, so even if they need to go into rebuilding mode in a year or so, they won't have to worry about the QB position.

It seems to me like that's a good situation to be in.

77
by TomC :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:12pm

I think it all depends on whether you think you're getting a 25-year-old franchise QB. If so, two first-rounders is no big deal, because a 25-year-old franchise QB makes your team much better now and for the next 10 years, whereas first-round picks might make your team better at some point in the future. I would personally trade any two of the last 20 Bears first-rounders for even a decent young QB, but that may be more an indictment of the Bears' draft record.

Anyway, as a Bears fan, I'm legally obligated to think that Cutler is a franchise QB, and if you accept that premise, then this is a great trade for the Bears.

134
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:04am

As a Vikings fan I can tell you that I see this as a horrible development. There are QBs in the draft as good as Cutler at best once every 5 years. And there are horrible busts at QB multiple times a year. The Bears got a proven 26 year old QB for the 18th this year and what would have to be considered >18th next year. This is the counter point to the Jared Allen trade. Why risk a draft pick when you can get someone nearly the same age with a track record? The Bears were 9-7 last year and they had 3 losses that could have been avoided by just having the offense avoid a 3 and out in the 4th quarter (TB, Car, and Atl). Winning one of those would have put them in the playoffs (may have won them the division, they would have had the same record as MN and I don't want to go through the tie breakers). I think the Bears have to be consider a favorite for the NFC North this year. With a good D and a comptentent QB they should be considered in the NFC champ conversation.

27
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:14pm

I can say one thing. The Denver and Chicago chapters of PFP 2009 will be darn interesting.

When is your deadline, BTW?

29
by lionsbob :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:16pm

http://www.sporcle.com/games/chicagobearsqbs.php

31
by Obi Wan (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:19pm

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of mock drafts suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

32
by Jimmy :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:20pm

I am bloody delighted. A QB since Luckman. Don't really care what it cost it is worth it.

35
by Jimmy :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:23pm

Also get Orlando Pace signed.

EDIT: Which they just did.

Happy, happy happy.

45
by Lou :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:43pm

Holy Crap! that was my thinking too. with him at LT, Williams at RT and Omiyale at LG the Oline will be greatly improved. Forte will find lanes to run, and Cutler will have time to pass. now we just need one more WR.

34
by Yinka Double Dare :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:22pm

Given the rate at which the Bears bust on their first rounders, this probably makes even more sense for them than teams who don't regularly screw those up.

The Bears have also apparently signed Orlando Pace per Chicago radio.

I imagine this draft will be defense-heavy along with a wideout in there somewhere, possibly in the second round. Brian Robiskie would be a nice fit for them, much as I hate the Buckeyes.

39
by Kenneth (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:32pm

This is a big risk, and so like any risk, I'm very nervous about it. But I'm happy my Bears are giving it a try.

I'm just surprised that the Bears turned out to be the high bidders.

43
by Lou :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:39pm

As a Bears fan I'm tremendously excited. I thought there was a real chance for the Bears to get him all along. I really don't think the WR corps is all that bad. and if the bears are able to land Pace, then the line will have significantly improved. The Bears O could be fun to watch this year!

I'm a little concerned about the Bears ability to restock that aging defense without draft picks, though maybe this is a sign they'll take more of a Colts approach and try to keep a bunch of cheap guys around a few studs on that side of the ball.

I'm also really intrigued as to what will happen with Orton in Denver. Will the talent around him + McDaniels he could be a really interesting fantasy QB. If, that is, his first half wasn't a fluke and hes gotten over the injury. And with all the picks the could improve that defense much faster than expected. next year might suck for them (if i recall they have a really difficult schedule) but after that they might be able to improve.

That said, I think if I were a Broncos fan I'd just give up on the team after the way this offseason has gone.

49
by David B. (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:49pm

Perspective from a Bears fan.

1. Anyone getting excited over Kyle Orton, aka Kid Whiskey, has not watched him try to throw more than 20 yds downfield. "Serviceable" is the most pleasant adjective I would ever use to describe him. Is he a professional? Yes, as of last year. But two years ago he was being called immature and a drunk. He's tough and he can complete the dink-and-dunk passes, but that's about it.

2. Orton's new coach is not Mike Shannahan. You might want to reconsider moving Orton up your draft board until you figure out if Josh McDaniels can coach. Early indications are not promising, um, like making a knee-jerk reaction to grab Cassell at the risk of alienating your most important players in your first week. That's what a 32 year old that's in over his head does. Sure, the jury is still out, but so far I'm unimpressed.

3. The Bears still have huge holes in the secondary. Their D-Line has regressed and Urlacher showed major wear and tear last season. Don't buy our playoff tickets just yet.

4. Even though the Bears' WR's basically suck, the offense will be FAR more balanced now than it's been since Erik Kramer's big year.

5. From Denver's perspective, the picks are everything. If they turn out good prospects then it's a win-win. If not, they'll regret this for a long time. Orton is irrelevant since he has no long term future.

That's all for now.

David

57
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:08pm

I can't really disagree with your points. I like to think, though, that McD is a better coach, than manager (how can he not, right?). He plugged a high school QB into an offense (a great offense, admittedly), and got good results. I don't like Cassel very much (small sample size, easy schedule), but you'd have to think that some very good coaching must have been going on. Some weaknesses must've been neccesary to disguise, and McD will likely get the chance to do a similar job with Orton (or Simms for that matter).

84
by mattman (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:46pm

By 'high school quarterback', do you mean a quarterback who spent four years in the premiere college football program in the nation, followed by three years as the understudy to a Hall of Fame quarterback in the most accomplished franchise of the decade? I don't imagine that an actual high school quarterback would have performed quite as well as Cassel did.

50
by KevinM (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:50pm

A major key will be what the Bears do with the limited picks. The Giants were killed over the picks they gave up for Eli Manning that turned into Merriman, Kaeding, etc. In 2005 with only 4 draft picks, they got Corey Webster, Justin Tuck, and Brandon Jacobs in rounds 2-4.

This looks like a good move for both teams.

51
by johonny (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:51pm

It seems like the Bears had a lot of offensive problems to address. However finally it appears QB isn't on of them. It's hard to look on that as anything but positive. My guess is they focus on O and D lines in the draft and hope for the post draft free agency shakes out a viable receiver. For Denver IDK. Doesn't seem like that long ago they had a solid coach and a solid young QB. Now they got the promise that comes from rebuilding. At least their division is such that a rebuilding team with lots of draft picks can't be totally ruled out of the mix.

53
by Jmagic (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:54pm

Finale of my defending-the-Bears comments. A great QB can make decent receivers look great a lot better than the converse. Hester is fast and with decent coaching can stretch the field. Olsen is a better TE than Scheffler, or at least in the same class. And just from a more qualitative standpoint, the Bears haven't had a good QB like... ever. Luckman, yeah. Unless someone comes and reinvents NFL defense while serving as their coordinator, like the last time they won a Super Bowl, just the mere possibility of having a solid QB is wonderful for Bears fans.

97
by AlanSP :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:02pm

A great QB can make decent receivers look great a lot better than the converse

I strongly disagree. Look at the numbers of Cunningham, Culpepper, Brady, and Cassel with and without Randy Moss (well you can't really look at "without" for Cassel, but you get the point). He even made Gus Frerotte look good for a couple games. Or look at McNabb with and without T.O. Or look at Kurt Warner in his "greatest show on turf years" and the more recent Boldin/Fitz years compared to his time with the Giants.

Good QBs with mediocre receivers don't so much make them look good as find ways to succeed without a lot of contribution from them (e.g. spreading to ball to backs and tight ends). McNabb is probably the best example of this, but you could also look at Pennington or David Garrard.

98
by tuluse :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:13pm

Brady made Deon Branch look good enough that the Patriots got a first round pick for him, and he made David Givens look good enough that the Titans thought he could be a starter.

He wasn't saying great receivers don't help, just that QBs have a bigger impact.

118
by AlanSP :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 8:49am

Branch's numbers in Seattle are comparable to what he did in his 1st 3 years with New England (get 50-60 yards a game and miss a lot of time with injuries). He had the one good year in 2005, which looks like a fluke (even at the time I thought the Seahawks got absolutely fleeced in that deal). It's hard to see how Branch shows that QBs help receivers more than the reverse. Was Brady not QB in 2002-2004? As for Givens, having an intact ACL probably helped him more than Brady did (yes, he didn't do much in his 5 games with the Titans, but that's an awfully small sample size).

121
by Jimmy :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:08am

I think the argument runs better as elite players make those around them much better, whether they are WRs or QBs. To offer a counter to your Moss argument, how about Brett Favre? Not one receiver he ever played with was sorth a damn anywhere else with some other less talented QB throwing him the ball. The WRs only needed half a yard of seperation and he was so accurate and had such a strong arm that it was all that was required for a complete pass. They didn't need to be great receivers, just to be able to catch one of his rockets before it buckled their facemask. Thinking about it you could say the same thing for any of his RBs and TEs.

Kurt Warner and McNabb aren't analogous in terms of talent to Randy Moss, Favre was.

182
by AlanSP :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 6:21pm

To offer a counter to your Moss argument, how about Brett Favre? Not one receiver he ever played with was sorth a damn anywhere else with some other less talented QB throwing him the ball.

That just isn't true. Let's take a look at Favre's receivers over the years, in roughly chronological order (Sorry for the length. Favre played with a lot of guys over the course of his career)

-Sterling Sharpe was already an all-pro receiver with Don Majkowski at QB and continued to be a star with Favre until injuries forced him to retire.
-Robert Brooks never played with anybody other than Favre, except for a 4-game stint with the Broncos attempting to come back from the injuries that would eventually force him to retire.
-Mark Clayton was notably worse in his one year with Favre than he had been before, but he was at the tail end of his career and had been getting passes from Marino before anyway.
-Mark Ingram was just as mediocre in his one year in Green Bay as he'd been with the Dolphins and Giants.
-Ditto for Anthony Morgan (except with the Bears)
-Andre Rison was utterly forgettable in 5 games with Favre
-Antonio Freeman was had his best years with Favre, but there wasn't any real dropoff when he left Green Bay. He was about the same in his year with Philadelphia as he was in his last year with Green Bay (a little better according to FO's stats)
-Don Beebe was again mediocre in GB, as he'd been with Buffalo
-Bill Schroeder may be the one guy who did have a significant drop off after leaving Green Bay
-Derrick Mays was more productive when he left for Seattle than he was in Green Bay
-Corey Bradford had comparable production in Green Bay and Houston
-Donald Driver put up similar numbers with Rodgers at QB instead of Favre.
-Terry Glenn had a fairly poor year by his standards in his one year with Favre, about the same as his performance the next year with Quincy freaking Carter at QB
-Javon Walker was good for a couple years in Green Bay, tore his ACL, and came back to have a good season with the Broncos before having his next season derailed by injuries again.
-Robert Ferguson is yet another receiver who was below average both with and without Favre
-Ditto for Antonio Chatman, although he did have one decent year with Favre.
-Greg Jennings was better with Rodgers at QB than Favre
-James Jones had a dropoff the year after Favre left, though that was largely due to injuries

-At TE, Mark Chmura and Bubba Franks never played with anybody other than Favre at QB, and Jackie Harris was about as good in Tampa Bay as he was in Green Bay.

There's virtually no evidence that receivers did better with Favre than they did with other QB's. And remember we're talking about one of the best ever here. I won't go through one at a time, but trust me that you can do the same thing for Elway, Manning, Montana, and Young and not find any evidence of a strong effect of having an elite QB. Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey, for instance, had their best years after Elway had retired and Brian Griese was the QB.

201
by Jimmy :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 8:11am

I don't have time to go through the entire list but I will say that you have produced a large (but probably not exhaustive) list of all the players who Favre threw to whilst making Pro Bowl after Pro Bowl and winning division titles over and over again. Were each and every one of those receivers important in making Favre the QB he was?

Not a particularly scientific (or statistical) answer, but there is so much chicken and egg involved with QB/WRs. The whole game of football is far more holistic than ever gets mentioned in the media although to be fair to analysts it would otherwise be almost impossible to describe anything that happened on the field. Imagine having to mention every wrinkle in the route combos, the defensive coverage, blocking scheme, who fell over, which back picked up the blitz etc every time you wanted to say 'QB X threw a touchdown to WR Y'.

54
by Jimmy :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 6:55pm

Right now the Bears are a much better team than they were at the end of the season. Draft picks rarely produce all that much early on and the best upgrade you can make to any team is at QB if possible. They would have spent their first rounder on a QB if they thought they were getting an upgrade, they do appear to have gotten an upgrade. Not having pick next year isn't great (obviously) but I would have thought that now the Bears finally have a QB the pick won't be that high anyway.

There was a chance that Orton might have developed into a Pro Bowl QB, he made a dramatic improvement from his rookie year to last season. He does have issues with staring receivers down and at times can float his deep ball. He is also a bit of a statue but does slide pretty well in the pocket. He might be better with Clady on his blindside instead of John St Clair (the improvement couldn't be more dramatic) I thought he might play well next year, but I would much rather have Cutler.

The Broncos will now be able to take two defenders who fit their 3-4 which will leave them with five in total by my count. There is probably a good deal more work to be done.

59
by Mr Shush :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:22pm

Given the mess that Denver had got themselves into, they haven't come out of this too badly. I still think they'd be better off if none of this had ever happened, but they now have a head-start in terms of having the ammo to trade up for Bradford in a year's time, and a starter who will ensure that their offense can function until then. So long as that's the plan. If the plan is Sanchez, I'm a lot less sold. He looks good (though nowhere near as good as Bradford), but if Lewin tells us anything it's that pro scouts need a lot more than one season's worth of data to be consistently right about college quarterbacks. For Chicago, it's a great move. They have a chance to win with their defense for its last couple of years, and then build an offense that will keep them in contention for years to come. Just don't expect Cutler's 2009 statistical production to be anything like his 2008.

61
by Raiderjoe :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:33pm

Raiders defintely besterthan Chiefs and brocnos now. not even quetsion a real fan can aks anymore iwhout being laughed at like clown.
only quetsion is if Raiders betters than cghargers. answer is probably yes. T Cable better coach than Norv Turner. Tomlison old and team dont have good backup. Rivers good Qb, but rest of offense nothing special. Raiders offense filled with up and cominger type players like J Russell, Z Miller, and all the widie receiver.s
Raiders defense def best in dibvisiona, not even worth writing about it becaususe pretty easy to see

63
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:36pm

Where's the Karma-meter when you need it?

64
by Mike Kurtz :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:42pm

Seems as though I'm late to the party, but I should mention that I think this is an awful, awful move for the Bears. Orton certainly isn't a world-beater, but he's a decent QB (and if you just look at his year pre-injury, pretty good, actually) working with a bad line and an atrocious receiving corps. The anchor of their line last year was John St Clair, a combination holding machine/turnstyle, and as bad as he is (he was the starter, too!) he left and they've come back and taken... Orlando Pace? Really?

And then of course, the receivers. I don't have the stats in front of me, but as a gross tally I'd say the bears split more TEs wide (between Olsen and Clark) more often than any team in the league, because their receivers are just that bad. Hester has shown some development as a receiver, but his hands are still awful and his routes are still mediocre.

And then there's the defense. They fell off a cliff last year, and the team's solution was to just start minicamps 2 weeks earlier. Nearly everyone is returning, and everyone is a year older. Their defense probably won't be bad next year, but there are still definite needs.

In light of all this, they've traded away their next two first round picks (where impact receivers and OTs can be relatively reliably found) and then a third (that's less depth). Plugging Cutler into a bad offense, especially alongside an increasingly mediocre defense, isn't going to fix any of the Bears' problems.

110
by AlanSP :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:34am

Impact WRs and OTs can't really be found reliably in the latter half of the 1st round. Impact OT's are relatively reliable earlier in the draft, but it becomes dicier later on. Impact WRs are more of a crapshoot. I actually agree with a lot of what you said, but it's worth remembering that Cutler's only 25. Even if the team has other holes to fill, they just got an important piece in place that will be there for a while as they attempt to address those other concerns.

65
by Voodoo Child (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:51pm

IMHO, the Broncos committed theft against the Bears. Two first round picks plus a third for a guy who thinks he's the next Elway, but can't handle being offered in a trade? And now he goes from the best offensive line in the league to the 24th, one of the worst receiving corps in the leagues, and 1 first day draft pick to address this.

I suppose it depends on your frame of reference...If Jerry Angelo is picking your first rounder, a 50-50 shot at being a success sounds about right. If Scott Pioli or Ozzie Newsome is picking your first rounder, a 50-50 shot at being a future Pro-Bowler sounds more accurate.

66
by jackinabox2 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:52pm

As long time Bronco fan, this has been the most traumatic off-season in probably the entire history of the franchise.

All I had hoped for after the Shanahan firing was an up and coming Defensive Genius Head Coach in the Mike Tomlin mode, a quality draft, and watching my Broncos slide into the playoffs as a wild card team.

Now? Who the hell knows? McDaniels is complete unknown as a head coach. The offence is likely to take a step or 3 backwards. The picks may help or may not... Regardless we seem to have fallen in outright rebuilding mode with the Rams, Lions, Raiders (perennial!), and Chiefs.

Yikes...

74
by Phoenix of Fury :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 8:59pm

I couldn't agree with you more on the "Most traumatic off-season in the history of the franchise" aspect.

69
by Dales :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 7:59pm

I'm just glad he didn't end up on the Redskins. While I think that he is a rich-man's Jeff George, he scares me more than Campbell does.

75
by RichardW (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:00pm

Damn. The Broncos absolutely fleeced the Bears.

78
by dw (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:15pm

what are the chances that Bowlen and McDaniels are sitting back looking at the quality of offense surrounding Cutler in Chicago and having a little laugh to shed some of the angst that they've been dealing with over the last month??? Have fun in the windy city Cutler, don't let the door hit you on the way out! ---

80
by D :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:19pm

The Bear's have now added future hall of famer Orlando Pace.

81
by Paul223438 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:22pm

"Damn. The Broncos absolutely fleeced the Bears."

QB is by far the most important position on the team, the one most tied into how a team fares. The Bears will now have a franchise QB for ten years. The Broncos will have Kyle Orton, who cannot throw a route further than 10 yards, and then draft picks, which are crap shoots.

But yes, the Bears got fleeced.

88
by DEW (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:03pm

Well, yeah, the Bears did get fleeced, in that they overpaid: their starting QB and two first-rounders and a third. That's a lot, and if Denver uses the picks wisely they'll end up with more value in the long run. But supply-and-demand apply here, since no matter what the Broncos were going to end up getting overpaid since they had a commodity to offer that nearly everybody needs or wants.

And as nearly everyone else has already pointed out, Cutler is the best quarterback talent the Bears have had since I was born. Seriously, the only knock on him is that maybe he doesn't have the mental intangibles to be a superstar, an area which is mushy at best and which, quite frankly, I never heard anyone even suggest until this offseason when the whole mess with McDaniels blew up. Seriously, who out there is better than Cutler? Brady (assuming a proper recovery), Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees, definitely. Kurt Warner's better, but with his age you don't know for how long that's going to last. But who else? Ben Rothlisberger's got the wins, but not the stats. Philip Rivers, maybe. Eli? Romo? McNabb? Who knows. Cassell? Let's see how he looks after one year not in the best offense in the league.

Bottom line: Cutler may or may not have acted like a whiny prima donna, depending on what was said or not said and what was lied about or not lied about (by this point, Heaven only knows what the truth is). But McDaniels had better be as good a judge of player talent as Belichek if he's going to pick a fight with his franchise quarterback and run him out of town. The NFC North is a weak division and the Bears were on the fringes last year with Kyle and Rex at QB. I like their chances of playing football in January more than I like the Broncos' at this point.

105
by Paul223438 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:59pm

I guess I don't see how it's so open and shut that they overpaid. Orton is a bad QB, not a starter-quality NFL QB, and he was going to be let go after next season anyway. The draft picks (And there are only 3 of them, and the Bears are getting one back, so people comparing this to Herschel Walker are clueless) are, as I said, crap shoots. You say if they use them "wisely" they'll be worth a great deal. As if all the teams whose draft picks bust were unwise, as if there's a science to it. It's a gamble. Are there odds to play? Sure. But it's a gamble, and often wisdom has nothing to do with it.

Cutler is a young, good QB. He's a first round pick who's panned out already, ie a sure thing, and at the most crucial position (by far) in the sport. He's the most valuable thing in the sport, a young, franchise QB, who is going to get nothing but better for a few more years yet. The Bears did not get fleeced; they did not overpay. And the judgment of that isn't what the Broncos end up drafting and how it works out, either. It's what the Bears would have drafted, and how that would've turned out. And the odds are there will not be a Cutler-level QB available at any of those three picks. Meanwhile considering how the Bears draft, their fifth-rounder is as likely to pan out as either of the first rounders would have been, had the Bears chosen them. And that sounds like hyperbole but you can look at the draft numbers the last few years for that franchise.

This trade is a complete win. It's ten years of good quarterback.

139
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:38am

I don't understand peoples fascination with the draft picks. You trade two first rounders for a barely past draft age QB with a track record. How many 1st round QB busts have there been? There are multiple busts every year. Hell the Broncos still have one on their roster. The odds have to be worse than 5-1 on landing a Cutler quality talent at QB in the first round, especially as late as 18.

156
by Johnsobs (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:04pm

Wrong. It's three years of good QB before Dan Snyder gives him an insane contract, doubling the Brady deal, and Cutler whithers in Cap hell in Washington. The Bears better be ready to tie up a significant chunk of their cap in the richest contract in NFL history and figure out how to deal with that. Cutler and Bus Cook will accept nothing less. This, ultimately, is what the whole situation was about. Bowlen can't afford Cutler, Cook saw a window, and Cutler jumped. Loyalty is not something this guy has, and I expect his exit from Chicago in three years to be just as messy.

157
by Eddo :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:42pm

Just like what happened when Manning, Brady, and McNabb reached free agency, right? Oh, wait, that's right, teams never let their franchise QBs actually reach the end of their contracts. There's a little thing called a contract extension; if Cutler is indeed a franchise QB for the Bears, they'll give him one.

82
by Paul223438 (not verified) :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:26pm

"what are the chances that Bowlen and McDaniels are sitting back looking at the quality of offense surrounding Cutler in Chicago and having a little laugh to shed some of the angst that they've been dealing with over the last month???"

Not good. McDaniels has ruined his head coaching career before he even coaches a game. He's a moron. It's hard to laugh when you've just, by sheer ineptitude, run the young franchise QB out of town, and are now starting Kyle Orton.

85
by mrh :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:48pm

Lovie and Jerry just got pregnant. They've got nine months to deliver. For now, the Shanahan watch starts in Chicago.

86
by Subrata Sircar :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 9:54pm

Why does anyone think this will work out well for anybody?

The Broncos could very easily end up in a down cycle the next few years while Orton struggles, particularly if they whiff on the draft picks (or injury strikes, etc.).

The Bears could end up with a talented QB who they can't surround with enough talent to make a difference. Cutler leaves for free agency at the end of his contract, having flashed enough talent to make a pile of money, but not enough to bring the Bears deep into the playoffs.

Cutler could end up regressing from his promising debut behind a disintegrating line throwing to mediocre players, with a defense that bends more and more until it snaps. He might not even get a large payday, if he gets "Eason'd" badly enough.

-----

I have the most sympathy for Chicago. They're taking a huge risk and the odds are not on their side, but it's the right bet to make for a team with a defense that has at most one more hurrah left.

-----

I have little sympathy for Cutler. His new coach came in and got distracted by a shiny object, which he ultimately didn't end up getting. That's cause for a hissy fit? It's the NFL - big business, on the biggest stage in US sports. If you're bothered that people consider trading you, or trading for people to replace you, you're not going to last long in this league.

If he really wanted a bigger contract, there were likely better ways of going about it than getting himself traded to a team that will make him look worse (and it's not like he was going to any team better than the Broncos!). (It's worth remembering that he's just 25, and has pretty much been the god of his environment for his whole life. That's explanatory, but it doesn't make me respect his actions.)

-----

I have little sympathy for McDaniels. Of course he should consider trading Cutler; he should consider any move that's in the Broncos interests as he understands them. From a football perspective, it's debatable at best, but it's not like they're trading Johnny Unitas in his prime for Tony Mandarich post-steroids or something.

What he has demonstrated is that he can't do PR (that's OK, it's not a requirement for his job) and that he isn't a deft handler of people and leader of man (that's not OK). In many ways the biggest job of a coach or manager isn't X's-and-O's, strategy and tactics; it's personnel and media management. Putting players in positions that use their strengths and hide their weaknesses can be very tricky. Getting those players to give you their best effort day in and day out, no matter what's going on around them, can be even harder. McDaniels isn't inspiring confidence here.

-----

I have some sympathy for Bowlen. He appears to have evaluated the situation and made a decision to salvage what he could and move forward. There's probably something he could have done to mitigate this earlier, but maybe not. In any event, he did what top brass is supposed to do; pick a course of action and make it happen.

-----

Mostly, I think there's a pretty good chance that everyone comes out of this in three years wondering where it all went so horribly wrong.

91
by Kaveman :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:32pm

The cause for Cutler's hissy fit is not that McDaniels explored the Cassel option, but that he subsequently denied making any trade overtures. He then sat on ESPN and said, with a straight face, that he's committed to Cutler as his QB but will not rule out any trade option that might improve the team. That's the kind of commitment that Travis Henry has shown. You would trust that guy? I certainly wouldn't want to work for him.

Sympathy for Bowlen? That's the LAST thing I could imagine. I lay this entire debacle right at Bowlen's feet. Two years ago he says Shanahan has the head coach job as long as he wants it. Last year he says Shanahan is one of the best coaches in the entire league. This year he fires Shanahan after the Broncos lost how many players to injury? And after Shanahan rebuilt the entire offense in two years flat (one holdover--Ben Hamilton, the LG) without multiple losing seasons, and ending up with the #2 offense in the league?

So Bowlen hires who to replace a likely HoF coach? Oh an offense guy. Okay, he's interesting, but he's a young guy, and a rookie. Who's the experienced guy to watch over him? Oh look, a rookie GM. What about the guy that Bowlen called "the man around here" a few weeks ago? He's moving to Chicago now? Because your rookie hires completely mismanaged the relationship? Ah. That makes wonderful sense.

In my opinion, the Broncos offseason has demonstrated owner imbecility on the order of Ford. What the heck was Bowlen thinking? Does anyone believe that the Broncos are going to be better this year than they were last year?

133
by Bad Doctor :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:04am

Don't you contradict yourself a bit there, Kaveman? In the first sentence, you say Cutler is outraged from the lying, not from the slam to his ego from Denver inquiring into Cassell ... but then you bash McDaniels for aggravating the situation by saying Cutler's the QB, but he won't rule out any trade that could improve the team, even though giving any more commitment to Cutler (i.e., massaging his ego) would be a clear lie, given that McDaniels did in fact explore a Cassell trade.

143
by MCS :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:46am

Wasn't Shanahan getting to be bigger than the organization? And his ego even bigger? Wasn't he dictating to Bowlen what to do? Sounds like and employee that was overstepping his bounds and not following instruction. I forget the stories now, but I remember thinking at the time that Shanahan had to go for the good of the organization.

108
by BigCheese :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:21am

Seing how Cutler is a well-documented life-long Bears fan, the only way I see him leaving in free agency is if he bombs and the bears don't try to re-sign him.

- Alvaro

109
by Scott P. (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:19am

I'm afraid Cutler's Bears fandom will probably get Chicago no more than a five-dollar discount when it comes time to sign his next contract.

87
by tuluse :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:00pm

And I thought I was huge Orton fan. The Bears just went from a QB with a floor of being serviceable and a ceiling of borderline probowler (like Brad Johnson or Kerry Collins), to a QB with a floor of multiple probowler, and ceiling of HOF. Trading 2 first round picks for that is definitely worth that. Giving up Orton is basically giving up nothing at that point because it's not like Orton was going to play much.

138
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:18am

No doubt. Who are all these people? Don't they realize that with Gus F Frerotte the Bears probably would have won the North last year?

89
by Eddo :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:08pm

Will the Bears win the Super Bowl this year? No. Will they win the division? Cutler helps, but still far from a sure thing. Do they still have multiple holes? You betcha.

However, as the Bears have proved over the last ten years (or fifty, give or take), holes at the offensive line, wide receiver, and defensive line positions are much more easily filled than a hole at the quarterback position. And, since Cutler's only 25, it seems safe to count on not needing to fill the quarterback hole for the next seven to ten years, at least.

So the Bears gave up some draft picks that could have been put to good use filling holes at other positions, but in doing so, ensured that there will be no hole at the single most important position. I think the trade is a good one.

93
by Jimmy :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:39pm

The Bears holes got fewer in number the last couple of days. QB is no longer considered an issue at all. Also when they signed Pace they will have eight veteran linemen all of whom are probably good enough to keep on the roster - assuming the Bears stick to their plan in previous years of only keeping eight linemen (ie Pace, Williams, Schaffer, Beekman, Omiyale, Garza, Kreutz, Buenning). That leaves FS, WR and DT as the likely first three draft picks left. The obvious problem being it might be tough to get starting quality players with the picks available.

95
by tuluse :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:43pm

Will the Bears win the Super Bowl this year? No.
Did you see the Cards going to the Superbowl last year?

Will they win the division? Cutler helps, but still far from a sure thing. Do they still have multiple holes? You betcha.
Doesn't that describe just about every team in the league? We're adding a very very good QB to a defense that was 7th last year in DVOA. Plus, Chris Williams will actually play. I would say this move puts Chicago to top 5 in the conference in terms of ability to win the Superbowl.

137
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:16am

The Bears were with a short curly hair of winning the division last year. They lost 3 games on horrible collapses that a modicum of offensive ability could have stymied. The Bears are not a bad team. Who are all these people that don't know the Bears nearly made the playoffs last year with an _injured_ Kyle F Orton? The Broncos were freaking horrible, they collapsed _despite_ a herculean effort by Cutler. And by all rights the Broncos should have been 7-9. In fact they should petition the league to get the SD win changed to a loss so they could get a better draft pick. Their draft pick is already lower in the 1st than the one they got from Chicago.

94
by Sifter :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 10:39pm

I'm sitting here thinking about this deal and it hits me: why would McDaniels want Orton anymore than he wanted Cutler?? I'm thinking right now Josh McDaniels is looking to make a follow up trade here, that would somehow swap Orton to KC and Denver getting Cassel. Of course this time he won't admit it to the media haha. A follow up trade would all depend on how nasty Scott Pioli is now that he's a division rival. If he's still friends with McDaniels, he might be willing to give Cassel up for a high value - say the #12 and newly acquired #18 picks. If he's not open to a deal I'm sure it will hit McDaniels sooner or later that he's been left holding Kyle Orton...Kyle Orton. McDaniels loves him some quarterback, he's just pulled off a big trade and his dream of NFL success hinges on...Kyle Orton. It might have to be a 3-way trade with say, the Browns swapping QBs. You know something like Cassel to Broncos, Orton and picks to Browns, Quinn to Chiefs. But I'm just flabbergasted that Josh McDaniels who seems picky with QBs has just picked Kyle Orton to be his QB. Surely he's cooking something else, or he's got his eye on a QB in the draft maybe.

99
by Chip :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:24pm

This is the ultimate experiment to finally determine:
QB makes the WR or do the WR make the QB?

Denver in 2008 = great overall offense, fantastic receiving corps, top tier offensive line, solid backfield and young PB QB.

Chicago in 2008 = terrible WRs, mediocre O-line, solid TE/RB and a serviceable QB.

2009 - let's swap QBs and finally answer the question.

I say it's 70/30 - QB makes the WR vs. WR makes the QB

202
by Jimmy :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 8:23am

I thought this experiment actually occured last year when the Packers traded Favre away and kept the rest of the offense. GB's WRs seemed to do OK and Rodgers numbers look decent enough but Ryan Grant fell off a cliff. I pointed out after Favre (lets say) 'left' that all of a sudden teams would want to put a safety in the box on running downs and the biggest loser statistically would be Ryan Grant. I may not have been that explicit and there are certainly other factors that are involved as well.

The great Chicago QBing experiment is also going to be flawed. Orlando Pace may not be the player he was but rigor mortis would have to have set in for him to be as bad in pass protection as St Clair was last year.

208
by tuluse :: Tue, 04/07/2009 - 11:30pm

Also, look at the Jets' running game pre and during during Favre era. But I'm sure that was all Alan Faneca, and next year will just be Thomas Jones getting old.

210
by Jimmy :: Wed, 04/08/2009 - 7:29pm

Now we are through the looking glass!!!

100
by JoRo :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:35pm

I just have to ask.

Can a fan become a free agent? It looks appealing right now, at most I'm playing wait and see, as the same FO that screwed the whole Cutler pooch now is in charge of using how many millions of dollars picking players.

Count me among the not so sold

101
by Key19 :: Thu, 04/02/2009 - 11:37pm

Well there goes my prediction on Cutler's going rate. Guess I was way wrong.

153
by MCS :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:39am

You and me both.

107
by Pete (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:15am

I think the Bears improved their QB situation. I don't know if Cutler was a Top 5 QB or a Top 10 (mentally fragile or not) QB who was in a good situation. However, he should provide Chicago with a better chance right now and maybe down the road. First round draft picks tend to get overpaid, right?

Maybe Denver can play with who they have now or they could draft Sanchez. Personally, I think they should see what they have this year (they are switching up their defense and coach, so why not write this year off?). If they do not like what they have this year, then draft a QB next year when it should be a better class (value) for QB. This is supposed to be a better year for lineman, right? And with two first round draft picks this year and two next year I hope they can figure something out to improve their team in the direction they want to go.

Of course, I still say the coach & Bowlen could have communicated with Cutler to avoid the situation blowing up like this. And Cutler could have accepted that he was a valuable commodity and spoken up in appreciation to being able to play.

111
by utvikefan (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:17am

As a Vikes fan, I have to say I am amused. Few trades and such really make me wonder how they will eventually turn out, like this one. Will be oh so fun to watch and see.

This isn't even close to a H. Walker trade, but I do think the Bears got mugged. Again, I am amused to see the K. Orton + receivers and O-Line stats vs. the Crybaby and no O-line + no receivers stats. I do hope the RB isn't the leading receiver this year, LOL.

The NFC North just got more fun, and I can thank Angello for that.

I am thinking, no stats LOL, just thinking, that Denver in 3 years > Chicago in 3 years.

112
by utbearsfan (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 3:49am

I am thinking, no stats LOL, just thinking, LOL, that you you are the dumbest person to follow football, LOL, in the history of the game, LOLOLOLLERSKATES.

127
by MilkmanDanimal :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:35am

Clearly, it's not the same as Herschel Walker, but I'd argue that, due to the hard salary cap, draft picks are MUCH more valuable than they used to be. Draft picks provide relatively cheap depth (at least once you're out of the top 10 or so) and give you an opportunity to build your team. Sure, it's not three firsts and three seconds, but you have to draft well to build a successful team these days. I mean, how many quality free agents were there this offseason? A handful? If you want to get better, you draft better.

145
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:59am

Would the Bears have been happy to draft QBs with the 18th, and expected 16th (league middle) draft picks and a 3rd round and end up with a 26 year old proven near all-pro level starter? Hell yes. The money they would have paid the 18th and 16th (combined) is probably ball park of what they'll pay Cutler. Flacco (18th last year) signed a 5 year 30 mill deal. Cutler will probably get more than double that, but double is ballpark. So they've saved a roster spot, which is a valuable commodity, and acquired a nearly draft age proven QB for 3 picks. I don't understand how this is bad. If Cutler were 30 or older then it's a gamble, but at this point he's basically a draft pick.

114
by Israel P. - Jerusalem (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 7:25am

There will come a time - maybe twenty or twenty-five years from now - when people will write about this trade and will have to begin "Remember a quarterback named Jay Cutler? He played for the Broncos, the Bears and a few other teams?"

119
by Jimmy :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 8:52am

Or they will say some fools actually traded Cutler, for less than three first rounders and the rights of prima nocte over the GM's virgin daughter. Then they might say, "Wait the Broncos used to play in Denver?"

124
by tuluse :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:19am

Brilliant, just brilliant.

126
by TomC :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:29am

Where is my Karma meter, dammit?!

*****

(Though I don't blame McDaniels & Xanders for opting out of the primae noctis --- I wouldn't want *any* part of a girl that looked like Angelo.)

115
by TimK :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 7:26am

Not sure how reliable the reporting is, but I find it interesting that Cutler apparently wouldn't talk to his (ex)team-mates either.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/14344233

Lends some credence to the Denver Front Office claims of trying to get in touch but not getting any response.

It almost makes me wonder if Bus Cook simply changed Cutler's phone numbers and didn't tell anyone...

If I was Chicago, with no first round picks for two years now to spend money on, I'd be worried about Cutler demanding a seriously big contract either this year or next - don't think he's going to play out his whole contract there.

Denver should have enough weapons and a quality OL to have some offence this year anyway - does anyone know of any mid-round QB projects who look as though they could be coached up behind Simms/Orton for the next 2-3 years. As a fan I'd like to think they would be able to grab a decent DL and LB/DB in the first round...

A star QB can make a team, but a team can also make a QB a star : I guess the next few years will prove which works best.

116
by tuluse :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 7:35am

If I was Chicago, with no first round picks for two years now to spend money on, I'd be worried about Cutler demanding a seriously big contract either this year or next - don't think he's going to play out his whole contract there.

I really doubt they expect him to. How many players play out their whole contract under normal circumstances? Plus he is still on his rookie deal, nearly every player that the team likes gets an extension before their rookie deal ends.

117
by jebmak :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 8:25am

I'm not sure who it was a good trade for, all I know is that, everything else equal, I will likely be taking the Under on Bears wins and Over on Broncos wins this season.

135
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:10am

How about you set a line then buddy? Don't pull this everything else equal crap. Set a line. I put the over under on the Broncos at 6. Bears 9.

163
by jebmak :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:30pm

My everything else equal refers to the fact that I have no clue right now about what regressions to the mean, drafts, or pre season injuries that those teams will have.

Based on the hype of trading a highly regarded QB, I believe that the line adjustments will be enough to take advantage of.

With the little I know right now, I would not bet Den @ 7.5 and Chi @ 9.0.

120
by mawbrew :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 8:55am

I tend to think the Broncos got the best of this deal, but what's really amazing is how much better it's worked out for them than it would have if they had been able to swing the original deal that started the mess. If the reports are right, they would have essentially swapped Cutler for Cassel with a third team (Bucs/Lions) giving up a first round pick to NE and receiving Cutler. By screwing up that effort, they were able to wait and get 2 first round picks, a third round pick and Orton (a guy I think may be as good as Cassel anyway). Unbelievable.

128
by Jimmy :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:35am

I do get what you mean but if you had asked this Bears fan at the end of the season if I wanted to trade Orton and two first round picks for Cutler I would have jumped at it.

I think I would rather have Orton over Cassel (McDaniel has coached Cassel before and might prefer a QB who already knows the system). They do really need those picks to rebuild their defense though. I can see this trade working out for both teams, I still think the Bears got the best of of though. If the Bears make the playoffs (which now seems a lot more likely) the pick next year will be low anyway so it is unlikely they would have gotten an impact player there anyway and Angelo seems to be better with third round picks than first rounders.

123
by This post is fu... :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:16am

Any thoughts on how Cutlers stats might be skewed by playing at Mile High? It skews Kickers obviously, has it ever been considered for QBs WRs?

129
by Wanker79 :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:48am

Paying that much, mortgaging their future in the process, just doesn't make sense for Chicago. They're not close enough to think a franchise QB is the cure to all their problems. I mentioned in the other thread that if I were Minnesota I'd do anything it took (short of trading current team talent) to bring in Cutler because they're close enough and have enough talent already on the roster that it would be worth it. That's not the case in Chicago.

Minnesota, once again, missed out on an opportunity to solidify the one glaring weakness on their team. I'm starting to feel pity for those poor Vikings fans.

131
by Eddo :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:57am

I don't see how the Bears mortgaged their future. If anything, they mortgaged their short-term future in order to ensure a more solid long-term future.

Of course, this operates under the assumption that Cutler is a franchise QB (and I get the impression you agree with this assumption, Wanker), but in five years, do you really think the Bears will be saying, "Gee, I wish we had those two first round picks four and five years ago instead of our franchise QB"? I'd say it's far more likely they'd be saying, "Man, we passed up a chance at our franchise QB in order to keep two first round picks?" if the trade hadn't gone through.

154
by Wanker79 :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:54am

That's all true assuming the derth of talent in Chicago (I'm admittedly being a bit too harsh...call it poetic license) doesn't retard Cutler's maturation. The problem is that the Bears will have a more difficult time bringing in additional talent whereas if this deal was with Minnesota I don't think they'd miss the picks as much.

Regardless, I'm not saying that I think it was a mistake for Chicago to make this trade. I just think it would have made so much more sense for Minnesota to make this deal, and I'm seriously starting to wonder if they're going to waste that team.

164
by Chocolate City (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:33pm

Give me a break. Two years ago, going into the season everyone thought the Vikings were a complete mess. Then, the Adrian Peterson Experience happened and they made the Jared Allen trade. Now, they're right there. Things change quickly in the NFL these days. What did people think of the Falcons a year ago?

Also, there is no comparison in recent NFL history for Cutler going to the Bears, that I can think of. Usually, new QBs come to teams as rookies, over-the-hill vets who you're hoping to squeeze one more championship run from, or Matt Schaub/ Scott Mitchell types who dazzle in a really small sample size. Cutler is proven as a good QB at the very least. Teams search for years trying to find those.

I think some here are seriously underestimating how hard it is to find a decent QB in the NFL. Everything else is replaceable without too much trouble.

190
by Pat (filler) (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:41pm

Also, there is no comparison in recent NFL history for Cutler going to the Bears, that I can think of.

Drew Brees to the Saints is the best comparison.

142
by Scarhead :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:44am

So last year Cutler had a QB rating of 86. Orton's was 79.6. Do you think the gap there is more likely to increase or decrease? I ask by QB rating because I made a bet with a guy who doesn't read football outsiders and it will be a more convenient stat for us to use. I say the gap will decrease. Good bet or not?

146
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:07am

Need more parameters. I doubt Orton starts the season. How many passes does each guy have to throw? 420 attempt minimum, if one makes and the other doesn't then the one who gets to 420 wins. If neither do it's a push. With that I'd gladly take Cutler. 420 is 8 fewer than Flacco attempted last year in 16 games. Orton attempted more in 15.

149
by tuluse :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:13am

Tentatively I would say it's a good bet. Mostly because Cutler was already playing at a very high level, and he doesn't have much head room to improve, while Orton's should go up.

161
by justme_cd :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:20pm

I'd probably argue the other way. Everyone's saying the experiment this trade offers is if QB making WR's better is more prevalent than WR's making QB's better. However, I say the true experiment is the switch in defences. How will Cutler respond when he doesn't have to score 30 to win every game because his team has something resembling an NFL defense.

I think the gap in many of Orton's and Cutler's stats will decrease, but QB rating will not be one of them because it is so dependent on comp%. Many factors make me think JC's comp% will go up, such as Matt Forte and the tight ends offering higher percentage routes, and needing to take up time rather than make up deficits. Also, Orton gets to deal with Marshall of the 57% catch rate.

147
by Chris (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:07am

Good thread and it looks like you guys covered the bases but here are some of my thoughts...

A beleive that different players have different value to different teams (duh, but let me explain). For example, a left handed pull hitter would have more value to the NY Yankees with a short porch in right field where he can do more damage than in other ball parks...

Playing QB in cold/WINDY Chicago is worst conditions for a QB to play in, but if Cutler doesn't have the strongest arm in the league, he certainly has one of the 5 strongest arms in the leauge to throw though those winds. It isn't just him throwing those deep outs, I've seen the guy funtionally use it and throw maybe a 70 yard pass in the air in a game....

Jay Cutler has the strong arm needed to play 8 home games in the cold/windy Chicago, and I'd argue he has more value to the Bears than say Washington/Tampa or the other suitors.

I also found it interesting that on the radio this morning Mel Kiper Jr. ( who I highly respect) is NOT sold on Jay Cutler like many of the people here are. He said his stats will be inflated under Shannihan, that even Jake Plummer and even Brian Griese put up good numbers under Shanny.... I certainly would NOT expect Cutler to post great stats in Chicago next year. I don't think Kiper Jr. was anti-Cutler, but he said he wouldn't annoint the guy just yet.

The Redskins comments here were pretty funny though, Jay Cutler is an "experiment", so what the heck is Jason Campbell and the 5th least scoring offense in the league? If you want to look at interceptions, fine, Jay Cutler threw more interceptions last year, but he had the #2 offense in the league... Campbell's offense didn't score and they didn't score more than 14 points against good defenses. Jason Campbell has a greater than 50% chance of having another mediocre/unimpressive season next year and will most likely not be resigned after next year...

Value, Orton did improve last year but his value would go down in Chicago as a backup QB so they threw him in there, but considering the fact that a 1st round QB has about a 50/50 bust rate, trading two first rounders ( and a third) seemed fair for a more "sure thing" QB with an ideal skill set to succeed in Chicago who hasn't had a real QB in over a decade.

Not having 2 first round picks won't kill chicago, it might surprise people but you CAN draft good players outside of round 1, and there is free agency and pretty good WR's do become available....

One of the best parts of having a franchise QB or close to it, is that you don't have to waste hight draft picks on QB's every couple of years... The Bears can focus on getting talent around Cutler, and restocking the shelf on defense....

168
by perly :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:07pm

I don't want to slow you down with facts, but it's not like the mighty Broncos were much of a scoring offense when they played good defenses. They scored 17 against the Dolphins, 16 against the Bucs and managed to hang 10 on the Panthers.

Funny how good defenses have an impact on scoring, and how having a schedule that dodges 9 of the top 10 and 12 of the top 16 defenses can lend itself to high scoring.

The Redskins' and Broncos' offenses aren't equivalent, but they're not as disparate in production as the point differential suggests. But you knew that, right?

184
by R.J. (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 7:48pm

To your point about Cutler being more valuable in a cold, wet, windy climate -- if Bears fans want to get excited, pull up highlights from Cutler's game against the Jets last season. In rain/sleet, strong winds and pretty cold weather, he completed downfield passes that just took your breath away. (I suspect its the reason noted Jets fan Mike Greenberg was so excited about the prospects of the Jets getting Cutler. Anyone who watched that game closely would have thought Cutler was a first ballot hall-of-famer.) He also had a couple great games like that two seasons ago on windy/rainy days against the Vikings and Chargers (if I remember correctly). And not to rain on Bears fans' parade, but you can also find games before last season, when the Broncos' pass protection wasn't very good, where Cutler looked flustered, lost and had terrible pocket presence. This past season Denver's offensive line was so good it may have hid this weakness. If the Bears offensive line doesn't improve, we'll get to see if Cutler's dramatic improvement on that score this past season was something of a mirage.

148
by Chris (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:12am

Scarhead- I'm not so sure Mcdaniels doesn't package Orton away in a trade like somebody else mentioned, and his playing conditions/talent will improve, while Cutler's will worsen.

Throwing passes in 30 mph winds when it is 10 degrees outside isn't easy, and it is even worse when you are now throwing to Brandon Lloyd instead of Brandon Marshall....

I am not sure Cutler steps right in there and succeeds right away anyway as both players have to learn totally new offenses. The offenses Shannihan ran is much different.

I'd short the odds on the Bears to win the SB right now. They attracted a lot of attention/hype, but making it all work out smoothly is much harder than it looks.

I'd still peg Aaron Rodgers and the Packers to win the NFC North next year. Rodgers stats will be better than Cutler's and Ortons next year and I am confident of that.

150
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:18am

The Packer's and their new 3-4? They'll probably be comparable to last year.

And Kiper has not liked Cutler from day 1.

151
by tuluse :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:27am

I was about to post, even if Rodgers is better than Cutler next year (which I'm convinced of), the Bears will almost surely have a better defense.

Since Lovie Smith became a defensive coordinator (2001), the number of defenses he has coached that have not been in the top 7 in DVOA is 2. 2004 his first year with the Bears, and only having Urlacher for 9 games, the defense was ranked 11th. In 2002 St Louis was ranked 12th. Outside of Baltimore that kind of consistency is just awesome.

162
by justme_cd :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:26pm

"you are now throwing to Brandon Lloyd instead of Brandon Marshall...."

I refuse to believe Brandon Lloyd will be more important than Forte, the tight ends, and/or Hester to Cutler's game.

165
by tuluse :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:35pm

Especially since Lloyd isn't on the team anymore.

155
by Chris (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:57am

Yes, the Packers that were 13-3 two years ago and lost close games they should have won last year. The Packers with one of the best QB's in the NFC who should actually improve next year...

I agree Lovie Smith is a strong defensive coordinator ( and a better overall coach than Mccarthy), he did have a good defense in St. Louis, and good talent in Chicago and the benefit of ideal conditions to play defense: Cold, Wind, and a grass field.

Minnesota has the talent, but if they have the 32nd best starting QB in the league, that negates a lot of that talent.

160
by Eddo :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:19pm

Cutler in the fourth quarter.

166
by MJK :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 1:51pm

So here's the total fallout from Tom Brady's injury (which put McDaniels and Cassel's names on the map) and from Shanahan being fired:

New England:
LOSES Matt Cassel, Mike Vrabel, Josh McDaniels
GAINS Cap space, #34 pick

Kansas City:
LOSES Cap space, #34 pick
GAINS Matt Cassel, Mike Vrabel

Denver:
LOSES: Jay Cutler, #149 pick, Mike Shanahan
GAINS: Kyle Orton, #18 pick, #84 pick, Chicago's 1st round pick next year, Josh McDaniels

Chicago:
LOSES: Kyle Orton, #18 pick, #84 pick, 1st round pick next year
GAINS: Jay Cutler, #149 pick

This could actually be a strange situation where no team made out amazingly well, but every team did OK. I think KC got the best of the deal...picking up a good QB and a needed veteran for just a 2nd rounder. Chicago probably made out the next best, acquiring a very good QB, although they had to ransome their drafts to do it. New England is essentially a wash...a good but not great pick for a backup QB and an aging veteran is decent, but losing a very good O-coordinator hurts. Denver probably did the worst...losing a potential HoF coach AND your QB of the future, in excahnge for an unproven coach and a QB named Kyle Orton stings, but at least they got a host of draft picks to help out...

I wonder how much better Denver could have done had not Pat Bowlen and Bus Cook been involved...

169
by Chip :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:11pm

The fan-half of me (and season ticket holder with a $ vested interest) is ecstatic about this trade. The stat-nerd in me loves it even more. Here's why:

The Bears pick up 1.6 wins Pythagorean Wins, while the Broncos lose 1.8 wins . Keep in mind that the Bears outperformed their Pyth.Wins by 0.3 games and the Broncos outperformed theirs by 1.8. So the proforma Pythagorean Wins for each team - based on 2008 numbers and holding all else constant (big assumption I realize):

Bears 10.3 wins
Broncos 4.4 wins

Here's the math behind this:

2008 Bears Broncos
Pnts For: 375 370
Pnts Against: 350 448
PW%: 54% 39%
PythWin: 8.7 6.2

Recall that the PW formula = PF ^ 2.37 / (PF ^ 2.37 + PA ^ 2.37) (see this post)

DYAR DPAR
Orton 333 23.3
Cutler 1382 96.7

DYAR converts into DPAR by dividing DYAR by 14.28 (100 yards / 7 pnts -> see this thread) and specifically Pat's post #150)

Proforma 2008 Bears Broncos
Pnts For: 448 297
Pnts Against: 350 448
PW%: 64% 27%
PythWin: 10.3 4.4

For each team I simply subtracting DPAR for the departed QB and added the DPAR of the arriving QB. For the Bears, it's 375 - 23.3 + 96.7 = 448.4

This is disastrous for the Broncos unless you think that defense will revert to the mean (in a good way), significantly improve with the addition first rounds picks and that there will be less than a 70 pnt DPAR dropoff from Cutler to Orton. From the Bears' perspective, with a solid defense, would you trade 2 first rounders for 1.6 additional wins? Absolutely. Oh, and possibly have a franchise QB for the next 7-10 years? Yeah, it's a no brainer.

174
by crack (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 3:59pm

This is a misrepresentation of DPAR. The P is success points based on the formula used for play success with DVOA, not actual game points.

176
by Chip :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 4:39pm

You are correct. I forgot to convert DPAR to actual points. 1 DPAR is worth 0.48 actual points from the "DPAR Explained" (under "Our Stats Explained"). In this case:

Cutler is worth 0.8 wins to the Bears and the Broncos lose 0.9 wins by trading him. And the proforma Pyth. Wins are:

Bears 9.7 wins
Broncos 5.3 wins

Proforma 2008 Bears Broncos
Pnts For: 410 335
Pnts Against: 350 448
PW%: 59% 33%

McDaniels will still be on the hot seat after the 2009 season. And the Bears still pick up a win per season for the next 7-10 years.

180
by MJK :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 5:16pm

The problem with your logic is that Cutler (or Orton, for that matter) doesn't just pick up his DYAR/DPAR and bring it with him. Remember the biggest caution about looking at FO's stats: something to the effect of "When we say Quarterback X has a DYAR of Y, what we actually mean is that Quarterback X, playing is system Z, with offensive coordinator A calling the shots, has a DYAR of Y when throwing to recievers B, C, and D, and behind line E, with running backs F and G".

A significant part of Cutler's DYAR is shared by Brandon Marshall, Mike Shannehan, the Denver O-line, and the consistent running game that Denver had built over the years. Conversely, a significant portion of Orton's lack of DYAR was throwing to Devin Hester and "Other Chicago WR". Also, DYAR/DPAR is a counting stat, and wasn't Orton injured for a chunk of last year, so his DYAR is artificially lower?

181
by Chip :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 5:28pm

I am absolutely aware of the limitations of any stat in a team game. Of course it's a team game and Cutler just doesn't pick up his DPAR and bring it with him.

That said, this crude, back-of-the-envelope method - which assumes that DPAR is 100% related to the QB - is probably the only way to quantify the impact of the trade. I'm of the opinion that the DPAR is mostly the QB's (probably 70/30 or such).

This trade is the perfect, controlled experiment to determine whether it's the QB or the WR Corp (or O-line). I almost wish that the Bears didn't make a change on the O-line nor bring in any new WRs simply so I can see this question answered.

Grossman played one game and posted a -70 DYAR, while Orton had 333 over 15 games. The night and day difference between the two QBs is just one of the many examples why I think it's a ~70/30 split.

192
by tuluse :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 2:59pm

On the other hand, the Denver defense DVOA is inflated by playing with a great offense, then gives them time off the field, and put pressure on opposing offenses to keep up.

I would not be surprised if Cutler is worth 2 wins over last year's Orton, and I think he'll make a bigger difference in the playoffs. Where we have seen how having a great QB can mask other deficiencies.

172
by Chris (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 2:59pm

MJK

I'd agree with you that KC made out the best, followed by Chicago and Denver losses the biggest. Mike Shannihan is a tremendous ( and self inflicted) loss.

Shannihan & Cutler are the most valued assets on your list, and Denver lost both of them.

173
by mrh :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 3:04pm

The yellow highlighting finally kicked in for me and it's great.

Apparently Cutler and his new OC have a history too, and it's not pretty.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/bears/2009/04/before_cutler_felt_burned_by_m.h...

Just confirms my thoughts that the coaches and front office in Chicago are on the hot seat. If Cutler is unhappy long-term in Chicago because of Turner, and doesn't sign a contract extension, the balance of the trade shifts against them IMO. Giving up two 1sts and a 3rd for a 6-10 year QB is a lot different than for a 3-year QB. The first makes sense, the second not so much.

I wonder if there was one last f-u from the Denver front office to Cutler in this trade over the other offers? Not that they necessarily took less from the Bears, but that all other things being equal this was icing on the cake.

193
by Kaveman :: Sat, 04/04/2009 - 9:45pm

Thanks for the link. I hadn't heard that the Bears coaching staff might be on shaky ground. If that's true, do you think Jerry Angelo is going to make a play for Mike Shanahan next season?

177
by Chris (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 4:48pm

Nice link MRH

The best part of that article was the angry Bears fan who said that Cutler "might" be better than Orton, but that Cutler isn't a "winner".

He didn't win in the SEC at Vandy, his #2 rated offense in Denver didn't win ... He just must not be clutch, must not know how to win etc.

Maybe the Bears will start Grossman ( who won at Florida), or bring back Eric Crouch or some other guy who obviously know's how to win.

178
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 4:54pm

I'm not particularly convinced by Cutler mainly due to the team's record over the past 3 years since he was installed as starter. Homer's will point at the defense and perhaps that's all it is.

But ultimately I don't think he'll be a top echelon QB because he's headed down the T.O. route. Denver just added to his ego problems by trading him. Not their problem any longer, but now Cutler has the message that any time the going gets tough he can ask for a trade and be accommodated. Think T.O.

179
by Eddo :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 5:05pm

Yep. Just like John Elway kept demanding trades after the Colts granted that first one.

183
by Charlie (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 7:29pm

As a Bears fan, I'd like to thank Bernard Pollard, without whom etc.

187
by Basilicus (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:10pm

As a Bears fan, I can honestly say this makes me giddy. A Lovie defense, a passing game, a developing running game. I'd just be happy with a perennial winning team, more playoff years than not. I'm not greedy. I just want the Bears to stop making me drink out of happiness instead of hideous shame.

200
by Jimmy :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 7:55am

I had absolutely no idea that you were a Bears fan. I guessed NFC North but probably would have said you were a Vikes fan if I had been pressed on the matter. That is some serious objectivity you bring to bear - or self hate ;).

188
by Basilicus (not verified) :: Fri, 04/03/2009 - 9:11pm

Er, that is to say "start" making me drink out happiness instead of hideous shame. But you get the idea.

203
by Kalyan :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 10:09am

I don't have any comments just questions:

For Cutler:
* Having shown immense immaturity & thin skin, will you grow up to be a more responsible team man?
* Having used to the luxuries of an Top 5 O-line & top WR tandem, how will you adjust to the huge drop in o-line & WR quality?
* Will you throw a tantrum at the lack of talent or will you work your way with what you have?
* Moving from the cozy mile-high environment, how will you adjust to the windy soldier field and wintery post-Nov conditions?
* After being the No. 1 player on your time, can you play second fiddle to the Chicago defense leadership team (Urlacher, Briggs, Vasher etc)
* Are you looking for a new contract, now that you have 'out-lived'/'out-performed' your rookie contract?

For Bus Cook:
* How do you seek to salvage your reputation after the Brett Favre and Jay Cutler saga?
* How were you not able to convince your client to talk to the team owner?

For Broncos (ownership, coach, front office):
* How will you establish trust in the locker room?
* How can you move forward knowing well that you have taken a backward step?
* How well are you going to leverage the draft picks you received
* How will will you react when the fans turn against you when faced with setbacks?

For Bears
* Where are the tools to leverage Jay Cutler? Where is the WR support that he needs?
* How would you manage Cutler's contract extension expectations?

Questions & more questions is all that i have ...

204
by Jimmy :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 12:27pm

Having shown immense immaturity & thin skin, will you grow up to be a more responsible team man?
* Having used to the luxuries of an Top 5 O-line & top WR tandem, how will you adjust to the huge drop in o-line & WR quality?
* Will you throw a tantrum at the lack of talent or will you work your way with what you have?
* Moving from the cozy mile-high environment, how will you adjust to the windy soldier field and wintery post-Nov conditions?
* After being the No. 1 player on your time, can you play second fiddle to the Chicago defense leadership team (Urlacher, Briggs, Vasher etc)
* Are you looking for a new contract, now that you have 'out-lived'/'out-performed' your rookie contract?

Denver's offensive line blocked well for Cutler who has great mobility, arm strength and a quick release. Orton has a decent enough release, but neither of the other two. Chicago's line won't be as bad as it was last year for the simple reason that John St Clair is no longer a starter. I have no idea how Denver's receivers will perform with Orton, anyone who claims to know is probably talking nonsense. Yes they might be great players, but both their starters have only ever really played with Cutler. I remember one of the game audibles threads where FO staffers were marvelling over Marshall's crowd catching, is it possible that a different QB wouldn't be able to get the ball to the receiver without a defender making a break on it? Also Devin Hester is a lot better than I supect you think he is. I was expecting a breakout season from him anyway, now I have no idea what he might do. He hasn't gotten any slower but he has actually learned to play receiver and that should be a frightening proposition. It should be borne in mind that the Bears actually have a running back as well.

I don't get why you think Mile High was such a cosy environment? Was Lambeau Field? Didn't seem to hold Favre back much. How about Rich Stadium and Jim Kelly?

As for questons about his maturity or leadership skills, I hadn't heard a peep from anyone about his levels of emotional stability or attitude. All that stuff came out following the news that he might be leaving due to falling out with management. How anyone is supposed to tell what is true is beyond me. If you are interested he used to help his old man in the summer barrowing concrete to make a bit of money and wasn't above spending the summer of his senior year in high school working on a litter truck. Not so prima donna -esque. I read all that in a newspaper too so believe what you like.

If he gets a new contract he has probably earned it. If the guy wants paying then pay him, he is worth it.

205
by AlanSP :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 6:17pm

It should be borne in mind that the Bears actually have a running back as well.

The Broncos may not have had a healthy running back, but their running game was still among the best in the league (far better than the Bears by pretty much any metric). It's telling that their offensive line was good enough that they could plug in 7 different running backs and have pretty all of them be effective. Cutler won't have anything close to that unless Pace suddenly starts playing like the Orlando Pace of 8 years ago, although I agree he should be an improvement over St. Clair, whose ability to keep convincing teams to sign him is probably his best skill (I still remember watching him give up 3 sacks to N.D. Kalu back when he was in St. Louis, and Kalu was never exactly a marquee pass rusher).

206
by Jimmy :: Mon, 04/06/2009 - 9:30pm

The Broncos did have a good running attack despite shuttling through runners. I think a big part of that success was due to there being a QB under center with a very strong arm and nobody in their right mind would keep a safety in the box. Look at the way the Packers running game fell apart last season.

207
by AlanSP :: Tue, 04/07/2009 - 4:41pm

Right, that explains why the Colts' and Cardinals' running games were so successful last year. I know you like Cutler, but giving him credit for the success of the running game is a pretty big stretch.

209
by Jimmy :: Wed, 04/08/2009 - 7:25pm

I never said that Denver's offensive line was a shambles. The Colts offensive line was a shambles and consequently many of the running plays that would have worked with slightly better blocking were stuffed (my falt mate was a big Colts fan so I saw a good deal of them last year, there was one memorable play involved Ugoh moving two yards to his left following the snap and then pirouetted on the spot as two tacklers flew by him, not good). As for Arizona, I have never rated Warner as highly as most in the league. Last season decent defenses tended to back themselves to generate turnovers against him. Arizona are possibly the most overrated team in the league right now, if the Niners had played Shaun Hill all year long instead of the JT Sullivan debacle they would probably have pipped the Cards to the division title and no one would even be bothering to talk up the Cardinals - and no I am not joking there the Niners with Hill under center would have beaten the Cards once and won at least one more game (ie the Philly game JT gave away), made the playoffs, possibly taking the Eagles out of them too.

Why is it difficult to believe that a top QB could be good enough to force teams to keep safeties out of the box? Manning is good enough that it even happened last year, the line however was sufficiently poor to remove the advantage in terms of production. Favre did it for years. Could you imagine anyone leaving a safety in the box twenty years ago against Marino?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.