Jay Cutler Effing Sucks!!!!

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by cj

Which led to two long field goals in 59 minutes and 50 seconds.

And the brilliant supporting cast had nothing to do with that.......

[ghostyapper]

Originally Posted by Valuist

And the brilliant supporting cast had nothing to do with that.......

Marshall? Royal? Scheffler? The same guys that put up big numbers last year with a different qb.

[Bochall]

Jay Cutler is Jeff Goerge reincarnated. Million dollar arm and ten cent head. Heck, he throws just like him...out of fear.

[bisket]

you know its bad when tom jackson starts cutting on ya. he said cutler wasn't even under pressure he was just throwing them. chitown is gonna eat cutler alive

[Valuist]

Originally Posted by ghostyapper

Marshall? Royal? Scheffler? The same guys that put up big numbers last year with a different qb.

Marshall? He led the NFL in drops last year. Shanahan said he was planning on cutting Marshall before he was let go. Sheffler is an average tight end, at best. He's not remotely close to the upper echelon. Royal is decent....
But that's only part of the equation. They have no running game. Defenses don't have to respect the run against Denver nowadays.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by bisket

you know its bad when tom jackson starts cutting on ya. he said cutler wasn't even under pressure he was just throwing them.

Did Jackson actually watch the game? Or does he still bleed Orange Crush? Idiot.

Originally Posted by Bochall

Jay Cutler is Jeff Goerge reincarnated. Million dollar arm and ten cent head. Heck, he throws just like him...out of fear.

I'm thinking that he's more like Jake Plummer because of his mobility. But your point is well taken. Either comparison isn't very flattering.

Now that I have settled down a little (well, he still sucks ) I would just like to add that if I was a Packer fan I'd be worried. Rodgers didn't look so good and neither did their running game. If Favre doesn't get stupid and plays like he did on Sunday the Vikes should win the North. As much as I hate to say it....

[ghostyapper]

Originally Posted by Valuist

Marshall? He led the NFL in drops last year. Shanahan said he was planning on cutting Marshall before he was let go. Sheffler is an average tight end, at best. He's not remotely close to the upper echelon. Royal is decent....
But that's only part of the equation. They have no running game. Defenses don't have to respect the run against Denver nowadays.

First off let me just say that the shanahan story is a load of crap. Cut marshall? There is NO chance that he would have done that. Even with all the crap he pulled this offseason they still didn't cut him.
You can disparage the skill positions all you want but the bottom line is they were all productive with cutler and that includes about 5-6 different rb.

I'm not a cutler fan but the broncos were better with him than orton.

[bisket]

none them can compare to the ravens joe cool

[dutchboy]

Don't qb's usally throw to a area where the receiver is suppose to be when the ball reaches them? It the receiver cannot get there for some reason or drops the pass why is the qb always blamed?

Talking heads on the broadcast and talk shows have no idea if the qb missed the receiver or if the receiver goofed up the play.

Several years ago I read a paper that said the qb is the least important player on a team. A lot of players can take a snap and hand off the ball or throw it if the receiver can get open and be in the right area when the ball gets there. Seem to recall the paper had either the defensive backs or linebackers listed as the most important positions on a team.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by dutchboy

Several years ago I read a paper that said the qb is the least important player on a team. A lot of players can take a snap and hand off the ball or throw it if the receiver can get open and be in the right area when the ball gets there. Seem to recall the paper had either the defensive backs or linebackers listed as the most important positions on a team.

You don't seriously believe this, do you? Look at the past Super Bowl winners. The vast majority of them had -- at least -- above average quarterbacks and above average defenses. Of the four teams that come to mind with only average QBs (2003 Bucs, 2000 Ravens, 1991 Skins, 1985 Bears) their team defense was outstanding! In the case of the Bears their secondary (the corners, especially) was their weak point. They didn't need to be great; the Bears d-line might have been the best of all time.

And if NFL teams didn't think that the QB position was so important why would they pay these guys so much? And you would see a lot more "Wildcat" offenses. So whoever wrote that paper is a complete moron, and I would book his/her bets anytime.

[dutchboy]

Originally Posted by headhawg

You don't seriously believe this, do you? Look at the past Super Bowl winners. The vast majority of them had -- at least -- above average quarterbacks and above average defenses. Of the four teams that come to mind with only average QBs (2003 Bucs, 2000 Ravens, 1991 Skins, 1985 Bears) their team defense was outstanding! In the case of the Bears their secondary (the corners, especially) was their weak point. They didn't need to be great; the Bears d-line might have been the best of all time.

And if NFL teams didn't think that the QB position was so important why would they pay these guys so much? And you would see a lot more "Wildcat" offenses. So whoever wrote that paper is a complete moron, and I would book his/her bets anytime.

I only believe what can be proven by the numbers and the paper had the stats to back up the comment.

[dutchboy]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...on-in-football

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by dutchboy

I only believe what can be proven by the numbers and the paper had the stats to back up the comment.

I don't want to threadjack here... Oh, wait a minute. It's my thread. Ok then...

Anyway, numbers don't "prove" anything. Read the book How to Lie with Statistics. At best, they are correlational not causal, and you can interpret stats in just about any way that you want. And that link didn't really show much in the way of stats.

I'm also not in complete disagreement with the author about the o-line. But using the 2006 Bears is a completely silly example and causes me to question whether or not he knows anything about football. That o-line was average at best; the defense stepped up when it had to (revisit the Arizona game. Hell, look at the first 13 weeks of the season.), the special teams won games for them (see Devin Hester), and many games that year-- especially early -- Rex Grossman looked like a Pro Bowl QB.

So the NFL is the ultimate team sport, and it's impossible to say what the most important position is. Even if you believe that it's the o-line that's not a single position. Go ahead -- someone make a good argument that it's a position other than quarterback. That article surely didn't.

[Show Me the Wire]

Da Bears bigger problem than QB, is no pass defense. I should say non-existence of pass defense.

[headhawg]

Big win by the Bears.