2009 Chicago Bears offseason

[Sosa21MVP]

Bears-Broncos from 2007 is on NFL Network right now. Just watched Cutler throw a beautiful deep ball to Marshall for a TD and just pretended it was Hester instead. \:D/

[David]

Beautiful pass from Rex to Clark there.

[David]

So, apparently, Plax's attorney (same guy that got Diddy off years ago) is working hard at either getting a plea deal done or, if it goes to trial, getting it pushed back till after the season. He says he'll know more on Monday.

 

 

Obviously, even if he gets in the clear legally, the NFL could still decide to suspend him. As much as I want to prove that our receivers will be good enough with Cutler throwing to them, I really want them to get this done. Plax's absurd ability to make catches + Cutler throwing to him just seems too amazing, as does getting the defense's attention off Hester.

[Sosa21MVP]

So, apparently, Plax's attorney (same guy that got Diddy off years ago) is working hard at either getting a plea deal done or, if it goes to trial, getting it pushed back till after the season. He says he'll know more on Monday.

 

 

Obviously, even if he gets in the clear legally, the NFL could still decide to suspend him. As much as I want to prove that our receivers will be good enough with Cutler throwing to them, I really want them to get this done. Plax's absurd ability to make catches + Cutler throwing to him just seems too amazing, as does getting the defense's attention off Hester.

 

So how much of a suspension would Plax get? If it is 4 games that I would say go for him anyways.

[rawaction]

Citing a trusted source, ESPN's Chris Mortensen says it's "amazing" how much better the Bears' receivers have looked with Jay Cutler at QB so far.

 

It's only spring and Devin Hester, Greg Olsen, and Earl Bennett haven't taken a single hit, but the news is encouraging. Chicago's receiver corps will have a far easier time getting the ball from Cutler and his career 62.5% completion rate than they did from Kyle Orton (55.3%) or Rex Grossman (54.2%). Jun. 4 - 8:42 am et

 

Source: Chris Mortensen on Twitter

 

Fantasy Football Breaking News - Rotoworld.com

 

I'm no Mort fan, and these early summer practices don't really tell you much, but this is what I'm expecting out of the receivers. I've had my differences with Angelo's decisions, but he's absolutely right when he talks about it starting with the QB.

 

Everybody loves Brandon Marshall, but he was a 4th rounder. You think Brandon Marshall would be Brandon Marshall if he was drafted in the 4th round by the Bears in 2006? I sure don't. Do you think Eddie Royal comes close to the rookie season he had if he's playing for the Bears last year?

 

A QB absolutely can make a WR.

 

I know for a fact Royal wouldn't have had the season he had for any other team in the NFL, especially not the Bears. But Brandon Marshall is one of the top 5 WRs in the league. You can't tell me one of the best WRs in the league is only great because of his QB/system. That's like saying Emmitt wouldn't have been a HOF without the great line. Rice wouldn't have been the best ever w/o Montana, Young, Walsh. Talent is talent. Great players are great at all times in all systems. I'm not saying Brandon Marshall is "great" yet, but with 206 catches and 2600 yards in his only 2 years as a starter (and the first one was Cutler's 1st year as a starter)....I'd say he's on his way.

 

I guarantee you he would not be considered a top 5 WR in the league if he was drafted by the Bears. No way, no how. Receivers depend heavily on the system/qb. They come out of nowhere and have success.

 

I think a RB can do a lot more on his own than a WR, absolutely. But yeah, Emmitt wouldn't have been the same RB with a lesser line. He might be HOF still, but all-time leading rusher? Rice is an all-timer, there are exceptions, like Moss.

 

I'm not saying Marshall would suck elsewhere, but the guy was a 4th rounder who owes a great deal of his success to the system he was in and great QB that threw to him. There's no way he would be considered the same player he is now considered had he been drafted by the Bears and played with Grossman, Griese and Orton. No way.

 

So, you are saying Jay Cutler was a great QB in his 2nd season in the league (1st starting) when Marshall caught 104 for 1300? Marshall may not duplicate the same numbers with Orton as his QB this year, but I would be willing to bet that he will be an 80/1100 WR (provided he's healthy) in 09. I also think that if Marshall had played with Grossman in Chicago, Grossman would have looked a lot better as a QB and may still be the starter for this team.

 

Calvin Johnson just has 1300 yards for an 0-16 team, with no QB and a horrible system.

Dwayne Bowe had 86/1000 for a horrible KC team w/ no QB and a horrible system.

Roddy White had an 80/1100 season in 07 with no QB and a horrible system.

Andre Johnson was an elite WR on a 6-win team with David Carr as his QB.

 

Granted, all those guys were picked in the first 2 rounds, but we all know slot in draft is not a predictor of future stardom. Maybe Marshall wouldn't be a top 5 WR, but he would definitely be among the top 15. Probably easily.

[Banedon]

I didn't realize that game was on NFL network until just before the 2 min warning. Cutler never had a chance to save that game...the defense couldn't get him the ball. That defense is the reason for Cutler's W/L record.

[dew1679666265]

I didn't realize that game was on NFL network until just before the 2 min warning. Cutler never had a chance to save that game...the defense couldn't get him the ball. That defense is the reason for Cutler's W/L record.

 

A quarterback's win/loss record is a useless stat in probably 100% of the situations.

 

Consider that going off of QB W/L from last year, Kerry Collins was one of the top 2-3 QBs in the league. I love Kerry, but that's silly.

 

By the way, I'm not directing this at you Banedon. Just commenting on the fascination overall with the stat.

[RedFlash]

A quarterback's win/loss record is a useless stat in probably 100% of the situations.

 

This is way people need to stop using the "win/loss" as a stat to evaluate a player's ability. Too many uncontrollable variables happen. The bottom line is that while in Denver when the Broncos' "D" played halfway leage average, Cutler was easily one of the game's best QB's without question. It was those games in which that same D played crappy that Cutler had to go outside of his game to keep his team in the game. If the Bears "D" is even half as good as the D that took the Bears to the Super Bowl a couple of yrs back, and the Bears are battling the Eagles as the best team in the NFC.

[dew1679666265]

A quarterback's win/loss record is a useless stat in probably 100% of the situations.

 

This is way people need to stop using the "win/loss" as a stat to evaluate a player's ability. Too many uncontrollable variables happen. The bottom line is that while in Denver when the Broncos' "D" played halfway leage average, Cutler was easily one of the game's best QB's without question. It was those games in which that same D played crappy that Cutler had to go outside of his game to keep his team in the game. If the Bears "D" is even half as good as the D that took the Bears to the Super Bowl a couple of yrs back, and the Bears are battling the Eagles as the best team in the NFC.

 

Exactly. Cutler is better than his record would indicate because he had a horrible defense blowing the leads he would build (or putting the team in a deficit he'd have to fight out of). Collins, for instance, is worse than his record would indicate because the Titans win games because of defense and Chris Johnson.

 

If the point is to evaluate the production level of an individual, you should look at what that individual has some control over. In football no one player can win or lose a game and therefore shouldn't get the credit for winning/losing. Only for how well he does in pursuit of a win.

[David]

This might shed some light on what we were discussing earlier...

 

 

I was really excited when the Bears signed Josh Bullocks, who seemed to be an upgrade in an area the Bears needed some help with. How has he fared so far and who is the frontrunner to start at free safety, Bullocks or Craig Steltz?

 

Colin Y.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 

Josh Bullocks has actually been working at strong safety, with Craig Steltz lining up at free safety. With Kevin Payne rebounding from an injury, Bullocks has gotten some first-team reps. He hasn’t made any spectacular plays during OTAs, but he has looked solid in coverage. There’s a long way to go before the start of the season, but I’d say that Payne and Steltz are the favorites to start at the strong and free safety positions, respectively. One player who will bear watching in training camp is Corey Graham, who was switched from cornerback to free safety. I'm a big fan of Graham's playmaking ability, and if he's able to learn his new position like I think he'll be able to, he could challenge for and possibly win the starting job.

[Soul]

This might shed some light on what we were discussing earlier...

 

 

I was really excited when the Bears signed Josh Bullocks, who seemed to be an upgrade in an area the Bears needed some help with. How has he fared so far and who is the frontrunner to start at free safety, Bullocks or Craig Steltz?

 

Colin Y.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 

Josh Bullocks has actually been working at strong safety, with Craig Steltz lining up at free safety. With Kevin Payne rebounding from an injury, Bullocks has gotten some first-team reps. He hasn’t made any spectacular plays during OTAs, but he has looked solid in coverage. There’s a long way to go before the start of the season, but I’d say that Payne and Steltz are the favorites to start at the strong and free safety positions, respectively. One player who will bear watching in training camp is Corey Graham, who was switched from cornerback to free safety. I'm a big fan of Graham's playmaking ability, and if he's able to learn his new position like I think he'll be able to, he could challenge for and possibly win the starting job.

 

That does shed some light on it. I guess we'll just have to see how it all shakes out. It will be interesting to see what happens come TC. I suppose 1st team reps in OTA's doesn't mean a whole lot, especially when we're talking about a position that is in flux.

[Magnetic Curses]

I didn't realize that game was on NFL network until just before the 2 min warning. Cutler never had a chance to save that game...the defense couldn't get him the ball. That defense is the reason for Cutler's W/L record.

 

berrian had maybe one of the most clutch catches in bears history in that game.

[Magnetic Curses]

A quarterback's win/loss record is a useless stat in probably 100% of the situations.

 

This is way people need to stop using the "win/loss" as a stat to evaluate a player's ability. Too many uncontrollable variables happen. The bottom line is that while in Denver when the Broncos' "D" played halfway leage average, Cutler was easily one of the game's best QB's without question. It was those games in which that same D played crappy that Cutler had to go outside of his game to keep his team in the game. If the Bears "D" is even half as good as the D that took the Bears to the Super Bowl a couple of yrs back, and the Bears are battling the Eagles as the best team in the NFC.

 

Exactly. Cutler is better than his record would indicate because he had a horrible defense blowing the leads he would build (or putting the team in a deficit he'd have to fight out of). Collins, for instance, is worse than his record would indicate because the Titans win games because of defense and Chris Johnson.

 

If the point is to evaluate the production level of an individual, you should look at what that individual has some control over. In football no one player can win or lose a game and therefore shouldn't get the credit for winning/losing. Only for how well he does in pursuit of a win.

 

i think if you take each season individually, yes. but the rule obviously fades over time. great quarterbacks don't have career losing records. the quarterback is the most consistent variable from season to season, the other parts are too hard to coordinate, a linebacker may pull a hamstring, a defensive tackle may blow out his knee, a safety may have recurring injuries. a great quarterback takes the bite out of injuries to defensive players, a great quarterback is the ultimate stabilizing force in the football universe.

[Soul]

A quarterback's win/loss record is a useless stat in probably 100% of the situations.

 

This is way people need to stop using the "win/loss" as a stat to evaluate a player's ability. Too many uncontrollable variables happen. The bottom line is that while in Denver when the Broncos' "D" played halfway leage average, Cutler was easily one of the game's best QB's without question. It was those games in which that same D played crappy that Cutler had to go outside of his game to keep his team in the game. If the Bears "D" is even half as good as the D that took the Bears to the Super Bowl a couple of yrs back, and the Bears are battling the Eagles as the best team in the NFC.

 

Exactly. Cutler is better than his record would indicate because he had a horrible defense blowing the leads he would build (or putting the team in a deficit he'd have to fight out of). Collins, for instance, is worse than his record would indicate because the Titans win games because of defense and Chris Johnson.

 

If the point is to evaluate the production level of an individual, you should look at what that individual has some control over. In football no one player can win or lose a game and therefore shouldn't get the credit for winning/losing. Only for how well he does in pursuit of a win.

 

i think if you take each season individually, yes. but the rule obviously fades over time. great quarterbacks don't have career losing records. the quarterback is the most consistent variable from season to season, the other parts are too hard to coordinate, a linebacker may pull a hamstring, a defensive tackle may blow out his knee, a safety may have recurring injuries. a great quarterback takes the bite out of injuries to defensive players, a great quarterback is the ultimate stabilizing force in the football universe.

Well, if you want to look at career trends then, the so-called "QB record" under Cutler has improved each year he has played.

 

In general I agree with you, but looking back there's been some QBs I consider to be pretty good that didn't post stellar W/L records. Generally it doesn't happen like that though over time, agreed.

[rawaction]

A quarterback's win/loss record is a useless stat in probably 100% of the situations.

 

This is way people need to stop using the "win/loss" as a stat to evaluate a player's ability. Too many uncontrollable variables happen. The bottom line is that while in Denver when the Broncos' "D" played halfway leage average, Cutler was easily one of the game's best QB's without question. It was those games in which that same D played crappy that Cutler had to go outside of his game to keep his team in the game. If the Bears "D" is even half as good as the D that took the Bears to the Super Bowl a couple of yrs back, and the Bears are battling the Eagles as the best team in the NFC.

 

Exactly. Cutler is better than his record would indicate because he had a horrible defense blowing the leads he would build (or putting the team in a deficit he'd have to fight out of). Collins, for instance, is worse than his record would indicate because the Titans win games because of defense and Chris Johnson.

 

If the point is to evaluate the production level of an individual, you should look at what that individual has some control over. In football no one player can win or lose a game and therefore shouldn't get the credit for winning/losing. Only for how well he does in pursuit of a win.

 

i think if you take each season individually, yes. but the rule obviously fades over time. great quarterbacks don't have career losing records. the quarterback is the most consistent variable from season to season, the other parts are too hard to coordinate, a linebacker may pull a hamstring, a defensive tackle may blow out his knee, a safety may have recurring injuries. a great quarterback takes the bite out of injuries to defensive players, a great quarterback is the ultimate stabilizing force in the football universe.

 

Warren Moon was only 105-108 as a QB. Fouts was 89-89. Sonny Jorgensen was 69-80. And Archie Manning's record is well documented. Drew Brees who is regarded as the 3rd best current QB in the league is 56-53 as a starter. Basically, my point is that it happens. All those teams had/have horrible defenses consistently in their careers.

[Magnetic Curses]

A quarterback's win/loss record is a useless stat in probably 100% of the situations.

 

This is way people need to stop using the "win/loss" as a stat to evaluate a player's ability. Too many uncontrollable variables happen. The bottom line is that while in Denver when the Broncos' "D" played halfway leage average, Cutler was easily one of the game's best QB's without question. It was those games in which that same D played crappy that Cutler had to go outside of his game to keep his team in the game. If the Bears "D" is even half as good as the D that took the Bears to the Super Bowl a couple of yrs back, and the Bears are battling the Eagles as the best team in the NFC.

 

Exactly. Cutler is better than his record would indicate because he had a horrible defense blowing the leads he would build (or putting the team in a deficit he'd have to fight out of). Collins, for instance, is worse than his record would indicate because the Titans win games because of defense and Chris Johnson.

 

If the point is to evaluate the production level of an individual, you should look at what that individual has some control over. In football no one player can win or lose a game and therefore shouldn't get the credit for winning/losing. Only for how well he does in pursuit of a win.

 

i think if you take each season individually, yes. but the rule obviously fades over time. great quarterbacks don't have career losing records. the quarterback is the most consistent variable from season to season, the other parts are too hard to coordinate, a linebacker may pull a hamstring, a defensive tackle may blow out his knee, a safety may have recurring injuries. a great quarterback takes the bite out of injuries to defensive players, a great quarterback is the ultimate stabilizing force in the football universe.

 

Warren Moon was only 105-108 as a QB. Fouts was 89-89. Sonny Jorgensen was 69-80. And Archie Manning's record is well documented. Drew Brees who is regarded as the 3rd best current QB in the league is 56-53 as a starter. Basically, my point is that it happens. All those teams had/have horrible defenses consistently in their careers.

 

i think those guys are pretty much the exceptions and not the rule. you have to play on some pretty rotten rotten teams from year-to-year to be under .500 and be a hall of famer at qb.

 

and archie manning, to me, was never a great quarterback.

 

anyway, i think we're arguing to different points.

[Soul]

Well, just watched Cutler shred the Jets on NFL replay, at the time the Jets were possibly the hottest team in football. Cutler was hooking up with his TE at will for most of the game. I hope Chicago is ready for QB who will take big risks though.

[Soul]

and archie manning, to me, was never a great quarterback.

 

Eh. Put Troy Aikman on the '08 Lions for 10 years and let's see how his numbers would change. Sometimes I wish we could go through with a hypothetical like that. As it is, most people accept that Archie's numbers would have looked much, much better on a team that had any kind of competence.

[rawaction]

 

i think if you take each season individually, yes. but the rule obviously fades over time. great quarterbacks don't have career losing records. the quarterback is the most consistent variable from season to season, the other parts are too hard to coordinate, a linebacker may pull a hamstring, a defensive tackle may blow out his knee, a safety may have recurring injuries. a great quarterback takes the bite out of injuries to defensive players, a great quarterback is the ultimate stabilizing force in the football universe.

 

Warren Moon was only 105-108 as a QB. Fouts was 89-89. Sonny Jorgensen was 69-80. And Archie Manning's record is well documented. Drew Brees who is regarded as the 3rd best current QB in the league is 56-53 as a starter. Basically, my point is that it happens. All those teams had/have horrible defenses consistently in their careers.

 

i think those guys are pretty much the exceptions and not the rule. you have to play on some pretty rotten rotten teams from year-to-year to be under .500 and be a hall of famer at qb.

 

and archie manning, to me, was never a great quarterback.

 

anyway, i think we're arguing to different points.

 

I wasn't really arguing a point. Just pointing out that it does happen that a great QB can have a crappy record. Granted if Jay Cutler doesn't finish his career with a winning record, it probably means his time as a Bear was a bust.

[Banedon]

I didn't realize that game was on NFL network until just before the 2 min warning. Cutler never had a chance to save that game...the defense couldn't get him the ball. That defense is the reason for Cutler's W/L record.

 

berrian had maybe one of the most clutch catches in bears history in that game.

 

The one diving out of bounds in the endzone to tie the game...yeah. I miss Berrian. I'm still upset that we let him go.

[Soul]

I didn't realize that game was on NFL network until just before the 2 min warning. Cutler never had a chance to save that game...the defense couldn't get him the ball. That defense is the reason for Cutler's W/L record.

 

berrian had maybe one of the most clutch catches in bears history in that game.

 

The one diving out of bounds in the endzone to tie the game...yeah. I miss Berrian. I'm still upset that we let him go.

 

I'm most upset that we couldn't engineer the situation to make sure he didn't wind up in the NFC North.

[dew1679666265]

i think if you take each season individually, yes. but the rule obviously fades over time. great quarterbacks don't have career losing records. the quarterback is the most consistent variable from season to season, the other parts are too hard to coordinate, a linebacker may pull a hamstring, a defensive tackle may blow out his knee, a safety may have recurring injuries. a great quarterback takes the bite out of injuries to defensive players, a great quarterback is the ultimate stabilizing force in the football universe.

 

A great quarterback is what you said, but one person can only do so much. If a team has a great QB and nothing else, that great QB is not going to win very many games. Likewise, a great team around an average/mediocre QB can make the quarterback look worlds better than he actually is.

 

For instance, Ben Roethlisberger has fairly pedestrian stats (89.4 QB rating, 101:69 career TD:INT ratio), but a 51-20 career record. That's not because he's a great QB, it's because he's been on fantastic Steeler teams most of his career.

 

Vince Young is 18-11 as a starting QB, which would lead you to believe he's been above average looking only at his career record. However, he's been pretty awful as a starting QB, he's just been on some good Titan teams.

 

Elvis Grbac is another barely mediocre QB (79.6 rating, 99:81 TD:INT, 59.1 comp %) but is 10 games over .500 for his career.

 

You add in the examples rawaction brought up of great QBs with bad records and a pattern begins to form. I just don't see much, if any, good that can come from using QB record - especially when compared with how it can be very deceiving.

[Soul]

The thing about Chicago though, if the Bears don't win the fans will blame it on Cutler whether it is justified or not.

 

If Cutler doesn't win in Chicago, he will be booed out of town, and it will be considered a massive bust acquisition -- regardless of the real reasons.

[dew1679666265]

The thing about Chicago though, if the Bears don't win the fans will blame it on Cutler whether it is justified or not.

 

If Cutler doesn't win in Chicago, he will be booed out of town, and it will be considered a massive bust acquisition -- regardless of the real reasons.

 

That's the downside of being a quarterback. Right or wrong, the QB gets all the credit when things go well (think Trent Dilfer on the 2000 Ravens) or all the blame when things don't go well.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Guys is it football season yet

 

Yes. You missed the opener yesterday. It was awesome.