Game 10 - BEARS @ San Francisco 49ers - 7:30 MNF

[JonJayCutler]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8632600/alex-smith-san-francisco-49ers-passes-concussion-tests-track-start-according-league-source

 

Looks like Smith will play Monday.

[cubbyvirus00]

So Cutler apologists (like myself) wanna point to his overall win loss record to defend him. I just heard that he's 7-19 against teams over .500. Something to think about...

[Sammy Sofa]

What the hell is a Cutler apologist.

[USSoccer]

So Cutler apologists (like myself) wanna point to his overall win loss record to defend him. I just heard that he's 7-19 against teams over .500. Something to think about...

 

Come on now...

[cubbyvirus00]

So Cutler apologists (like myself) wanna point to his overall win loss record to defend him. I just heard that he's 7-19 against teams over .500. Something to think about...

 

Come on now...

 

If you're going to evaluate his 3.5 years in Chicago how would you summarize it using statistics? It's obvious he didn't have much to work with starting out.

[UMFan83]

I am counting a record of 10-16 against teams with a .500 record or better with the Bears. 2-8 in 2009, and 8-8 since then. The numbers could be slightly off. Edited November 15, 2012 by UMFan83

[USSoccer]

So Cutler apologists (like myself) wanna point to his overall win loss record to defend him. I just heard that he's 7-19 against teams over .500. Something to think about...

 

Come on now...

 

If you're going to evaluate his 3.5 years in Chicago how would you summarize it using statistics? It's obvious he didn't have much to work with starting out.

 

I would start by looking at the context of what he's had to work with, and realize that he's the best QB in the history of the franchise.

[Soul]

So Cutler apologists (like myself) wanna point to his overall win loss record to defend him. I just heard that he's 7-19 against teams over .500. Something to think about...

 

Come on now...

 

If you're going to evaluate his 3.5 years in Chicago how would you summarize it using statistics? It's obvious he didn't have much to work with starting out.

 

I would start by looking at the context of what he's had to work with, and realize that he's the best QB in the history of the franchise.

 

And the last thing I would do is take a team statistic and apply it to an individual player.

[Magnetic Curses]

So Cutler apologists (like myself) wanna point to his overall win loss record to defend him. I just heard that he's 7-19 against teams over .500. Something to think about...

 

i love how you include yourself and then go on to do the exact opposite of what that means.

[Magnetic Curses]

so communists (like myself) like to talk about solidarity, but i just heard that unions suck. something to think about.

[UMFan83]

So Cutler apologists (like myself) wanna point to his overall win loss record to defend him. I just heard that he's 7-19 against teams over .500. Something to think about...

 

Come on now...

 

If you're going to evaluate his 3.5 years in Chicago how would you summarize it using statistics? It's obvious he didn't have much to work with starting out.

 

Follow the logic here. He wants a statistic to evaluate Cutler's performance as a Bear and admits that it's tough to use his individual stats to evaluate him because he didn't have much to work with the first couple of years. So he then proposes that team W-L is the best way to judge Cutler. What the hell?

[cubbyvirus00]

So Cutler apologists (like myself) wanna point to his overall win loss record to defend him. I just heard that he's 7-19 against teams over .500. Something to think about...

 

Come on now...

 

If you're going to evaluate his 3.5 years in Chicago how would you summarize it using statistics? It's obvious he didn't have much to work with starting out.

 

Follow the logic here. He wants a statistic to evaluate Cutler's performance as a Bear and admits that it's tough to use his individual stats to evaluate him because he didn't have much to work with the first couple of years. So he then proposes that team W-L is the best way to judge Cutler. What the hell?

 

What I'm getting at is that with Cutler you have an interesting case study of trying to evaluate his time in a Bears uniform. Im playing devils advocate in order to spark a diwcussion. Yes he's the best Bears QB in franchise history but that doesn't mean dick because our history of quarterback play is horse [expletive]. His statistics aren't very good partly because he hasn't had a whole lot of quality skill players to work with and partly because his decision making and mechanics tend to get him into trouble.

 

So my question is what do you go by to evaluate him and how long can we go with making excuses for his lack of above average QB play? It's an honest question that was spurred by a debate on Th Score with the hosts mentioning how they think out of any trades or FA signings in this town he's been given the longest leash and at what point do you come to a conclusion on him?

[Banedon]

So Cutler apologists (like myself) wanna point to his overall win loss record to defend him. I just heard that he's 7-19 against teams over .500. Something to think about...

 

Come on now...

 

If you're going to evaluate his 3.5 years in Chicago how would you summarize it using statistics? It's obvious he didn't have much to work with starting out.

 

Follow the logic here. He wants a statistic to evaluate Cutler's performance as a Bear and admits that it's tough to use his individual stats to evaluate him because he didn't have much to work with the first couple of years. So he then proposes that team W-L is the best way to judge Cutler. What the hell?

 

What I'm getting at is that with Cutler you have an interesting case study of trying to evaluate his time in a Bears uniform. Im playing devils advocate in order to spark a diwcussion. Yes he's the best Bears QB in franchise history but that doesn't mean dick because our history of quarterback play is horse [expletive]. His statistics aren't very good partly because he hasn't had a whole lot of quality skill players to work with and partly because his decision making and mechanics tend to get him into trouble.

 

So my question is what do you go by to evaluate him and how long can we go with making excuses for his lack of above average QB play? It's an honest question that was spurred by a debate on Th Score with the hosts mentioning how they think out of any trades or FA signings in this town he's been given the longest leash and at what point do you come to a conclusion on him?

 

The conclusion is that he's the best QB this town has had. I think he's been given a long leash exactly because we've already come to a conclusion. He'll probably never be a top QB in the league. But he's good enough, and given the teams inability to find good QB's, few (none?) of us fans have faith that they could ever replace him with someone as good or better.

[Sosa21MVP]

Yes, rush to judgment on Cutler! That way we can quickly get back to the days of the rotating door of awful QBs! \:D/

[Guest]

I hate when people refer to him as the best QB we've ever had as though that means anything.

 

It's like the people who said "...but at least he took us to the playoffs twice in a row! We haven't done that in a million years!" about Hendry.

 

You should be able to praise his play without going to garbage like that.

[Magnetic Curses]

I hate when people refer to him as the best QB we've ever had as though that means anything.

 

It's like the people who said "...but at least he took us to the playoffs twice in a row! We haven't done that in a million years!" about Hendry.

 

You should be able to praise his play without going to garbage like that.

 

it does mean something, actually. it means that he's the best quarterback we've ever had and replacing the best qb you've ever had is extremely difficult. so be careful what you wish for.

[Guest]

I hate when people refer to him as the best QB we've ever had as though that means anything.

 

It's like the people who said "...but at least he took us to the playoffs twice in a row! We haven't done that in a million years!" about Hendry.

 

You should be able to praise his play without going to garbage like that.

 

it does mean something, actually. it means that he's the best quarterback we've ever had and replacing the best qb you've ever had is extremely difficult. so be careful what you wish for.

 

I don't want to replace him. I just don't think it means anything when the previous best quarterback you ever had played when it was a completely different sport... and the next guy was Erik Kramer for one year.

[Banedon]

I hate when people refer to him as the best QB we've ever had as though that means anything.

 

It's like the people who said "...but at least he took us to the playoffs twice in a row! We haven't done that in a million years!" about Hendry.

 

You should be able to praise his play without going to garbage like that.

 

Not the same. One is about team peformance, the other is about an individual position. If you have to use a Cubs analogy, it's more like saying Aramis was the best 3rd baseman we'd had since Santo. But even that doesn't compare, because QB is the most important position on a football team, and the hardest to get elite level talent to fill. Teams (like the Bears) go generations without an elite quarterback.

 

It's completely fair to refer to him as the best QB the Bears have had.

[Guest]

I hate when people refer to him as the best QB we've ever had as though that means anything.

 

It's like the people who said "...but at least he took us to the playoffs twice in a row! We haven't done that in a million years!" about Hendry.

 

You should be able to praise his play without going to garbage like that.

 

Not the same. One is about team peformance, the other is about an individual position. If you have to use a Cubs analogy, it's more like saying Aramis was the best 3rd baseman we'd had since Santo. But even that doesn't compare, because QB is the most important position on a football team, and the hardest to get elite level talent to fill. Teams (like the Bears) go generations without an elite quarterback.

 

It's completely fair to refer to him as the best QB the Bears have had.

 

You can refer to him as that, and it's fair, but it carries little to no weight.

[Magnetic Curses]

I hate when people refer to him as the best QB we've ever had as though that means anything.

 

It's like the people who said "...but at least he took us to the playoffs twice in a row! We haven't done that in a million years!" about Hendry.

 

You should be able to praise his play without going to garbage like that.

 

it does mean something, actually. it means that he's the best quarterback we've ever had and replacing the best qb you've ever had is extremely difficult. so be careful what you wish for.

 

I don't want to replace him. I just don't think it means anything when the previous best quarterback you ever had played when it was a completely different sport... and the next guy was Erik Kramer for one year.

 

people aren't using it to say that he's a great quarterback, they're using it to reason with the meatballs who all of a sudden are taking competent qb play for granted.

[Magnetic Curses]

and i know you have a problem with me citing his record in his most recent stretch, but that's to calm the meatballs who think he's a loser.

[Banedon]

I hate when people refer to him as the best QB we've ever had as though that means anything.

 

It's like the people who said "...but at least he took us to the playoffs twice in a row! We haven't done that in a million years!" about Hendry.

 

You should be able to praise his play without going to garbage like that.

 

Not the same. One is about team peformance, the other is about an individual position. If you have to use a Cubs analogy, it's more like saying Aramis was the best 3rd baseman we'd had since Santo. But even that doesn't compare, because QB is the most important position on a football team, and the hardest to get elite level talent to fill. Teams (like the Bears) go generations without an elite quarterback.

 

It's completely fair to refer to him as the best QB the Bears have had.

 

You can refer to him as that, and it's fair, but it carries little to no weight.

 

With you.

[Guest]

and i know you have a problem with me citing his record in his most recent stretch, but that's to calm the meatballs who think he's a loser.

 

Yea. I'm glad that whole "he hasn't had a winning record since high school" or whatever talking point is gone.

[KingCubsFan]

I hate when people refer to him as the best QB we've ever had as though that means anything.

 

It's like the people who said "...but at least he took us to the playoffs twice in a row! We haven't done that in a million years!" about Hendry.

 

You should be able to praise his play without going to garbage like that.

 

Not the same. One is about team peformance, the other is about an individual position. If you have to use a Cubs analogy, it's more like saying Aramis was the best 3rd baseman we'd had since Santo. But even that doesn't compare, because QB is the most important position on a football team, and the hardest to get elite level talent to fill. Teams (like the Bears) go generations without an elite quarterback.

 

It's completely fair to refer to him as the best QB the Bears have had.

The term is obviously subjective, but the Bears have never really had an "elite" quarterback.

[Banedon]

I hate when people refer to him as the best QB we've ever had as though that means anything.

 

It's like the people who said "...but at least he took us to the playoffs twice in a row! We haven't done that in a million years!" about Hendry.

 

You should be able to praise his play without going to garbage like that.

 

Not the same. One is about team peformance, the other is about an individual position. If you have to use a Cubs analogy, it's more like saying Aramis was the best 3rd baseman we'd had since Santo. But even that doesn't compare, because QB is the most important position on a football team, and the hardest to get elite level talent to fill. Teams (like the Bears) go generations without an elite quarterback.

 

It's completely fair to refer to him as the best QB the Bears have had.

The term is obviously subjective, but the Bears have never really had an "elite" quarterback.

 

That's fine...it's a completely valid debate to have regarding Cutler. My point still is that it's the hardest position to get quality talent at, and so it's perfectly reasonable for a fan base to be pleased with the position based on the fact that they've never had a more talented person filling that role.