2015 Bears Offseason (Foxy new Head Coach page 104)

[Lenny]

If somebody is a meatball with a meatball viewpoint on Cutler, then yes, they are a meatball. There are, however, many different takes on Cutler that are not meatballish. I don't know what yours is, but I have a feeling it is five alarm hot.

 

I disagree with the idea that the Bears' efforts to shift to a stronger QB-driven offense has been mostly tailored to fit/please Cutler. Improving a terrible OL, improving your terrible receivers and trying to find an OC that isn't a mouthbreather is what a team is supposed to be doing.

 

Per your second paragraph, I agree. Solidifying the O would've benefited anyone, Neckbeard or Jay. If you look up thread, I chastised Raw for claiming it was dedicated to Cutler.

[Sammy Sofa]

Then I understand even less what you were going for before, but whatever.

[Lenny]

But sorry Mojo, Jay ain't [expletive].

 

Marshall, Jeffery, Bennett, Forte, and you rack up a 1:1 TD to TO ratio?

 

http://www.randomintelligence.com/gifs/KennyOmega4.gif

[Sammy Sofa]

OK?

[Lenny]

OK?

 

You understood the gif.

 

How many more weapons does he need?

[Sammy Sofa]

Four.

 

I have no idea what's happening.

[Lenny]

Four.

 

I have no idea what's happening.

 

 

Your boy Jay:

 

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2828/9550146613_f2aa1e6d13_o.gif

[Sammy Sofa]

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1905201/jyJ5bQc.gif

[Guest]

What the hell are you talking about raw? They hired Martz and fired martz because of jay? They fired lovie because of jay? They signed Orlando pace because of jay?

 

 

This is all ridiculous. They fired lovie because they didn't win enough and hired trestman because emery was a good who bought his book. The Bears wanted to go from a defense first team that didn't win enough to an offense centric team that won more, but their head coach can't lead for squat and nobody bought his schtick.

 

The narrative that this has been all about jay does not hold up.

Also, they fired Martz because Jay broke his thumb during an heroic stretch of play and they proceeded to lose the rest of their games save the last one because they were untimely thrust into the vast expanse of the Great QB Wilderness.

 

If Jay doesnt get hurt, theyre in the playoffs and Martz and Lovie might still be around.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Stannis

[Guest]

 

I don't buy that the Bears were trying to win because of Cutler, they had perhaps the most talent at skill players on Offense as anyone in the league. They were trying to win WITH Cutler.

 

absolutely, the Bears have historically suffered when he's been out because, well, the vast expanse of the great QB Wilderness.

 

Why is there such a clamor about this? Jay is going to be treated like any other starting quarterback when the new coach comes in. It's not like coaches get to come in and pick a quarterback to fill the open qb position. the ones who do get ridden out of town quickly because, well, the vast expanse of the QB Wilderness and the bitter cold of its desolation.

 

when Cutler is gone, my little lordlings, you will scoff at such winters as this when the snow falls a hundred feet deep and kings freeze in their castles the same as the smallfolk in their huts. when the white walkers move through the woods.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had your tongue or a bottle of Stolichnaya firmly implanted in your cheek when you typed this horse [expletive]

What on earth i dont even

[Guest]

If somebody is a meatball with a meatball viewpoint on Cutler, then yes, they are a meatball. There are, however, many different takes on Cutler that are not meatballish. I don't know what yours is, but I have a feeling it is five alarm hot.

 

I disagree with the idea that the Bears' efforts to shift to a stronger QB-driven offense has been mostly tailored to fit/please Cutler. Improving a terrible OL, improving your terrible receivers and trying to find an OC that isn't a mouthbreather is what a team is supposed to be doing.

The correct stance on Jay is that he is pretty good and he played ok this year and was often disappointing. He fumbled plenty of times, but his per sack fumble average was exactly the same as Aaron Rodgers. The interceptions you have to live with, because......well, the vast expanse of the Great QB Wilderness.

[rawaction]

If somebody is a meatball with a meatball viewpoint on Cutler, then yes, they are a meatball. There are, however, many different takes on Cutler that are not meatballish. I don't know what yours is, but I have a feeling it is five alarm hot.

 

I disagree with the idea that the Bears' efforts to shift to a stronger QB-driven offense has been mostly tailored to fit/please Cutler. Improving a terrible OL, improving your terrible receivers and trying to find an OC that isn't a mouthbreather is what a team is supposed to be doing.

 

Per your second paragraph, I agree. Solidifying the O would've benefited anyone, Neckbeard or Jay. If you look up thread, I chastised Raw for claiming it was dedicated to Cutler.

 

It WOULD have benefitted any QB, I never said it was 100% dedicated to Cutler. But the Bears had any QB for 50 years and didn't give him anything. Granted those were GMs other than Emery. But the Bears don't sign Pace right after trading for Jay if Orton was still the QB that year. The Bears probably don't hire Emery if he didn't completely vow to get Jay all the help in the world. They probably don't spend as much money as they did on the OL and use a 1st round pick on OL if Jay is not the QB. Of course, part of that is because they would have used those resources to find a QB.

 

It's what a team is supposed to do, but the Bears never did until they got the QB. And it's one thing to get weapons, OL, and offensive coaches, but it's another to go thru Turner, Martz, Tice, and Kromer. Not to mention, the fact that he was involved in the interviews of head coaches that eventually led to the hiring of Trestman.

 

Again, it's what teams with good QBs do and should do. But the fact that they aren't good enough doing that with Cutler means they should probably stop. Ideally, whoever the next coach is will bring in an OC who makes Cutler better and the Bears win tons of games, Cutler plays out this contract and finishes out his careeer as a Bear with multiple Superbowl titles. But that has almost 0 chance of happening with Shanahan due to his age. That's why I've said I'd be fine with even Kubiak. Because he can still be a decent coach with someone other than Jay at QB (Shanny could too, but he isn't likely to outlast Jay if things go well due to age). I don't want 2 years of decent success. I want sustained success over a long period of time.

[Guest]

Who is this Lenny goof and why is he a monster of meatballery?

[Guest]

And also does he like thick onion gravy?

[Guest]

If somebody is a meatball with a meatball viewpoint on Cutler, then yes, they are a meatball. There are, however, many different takes on Cutler that are not meatballish. I don't know what yours is, but I have a feeling it is five alarm hot.

 

I disagree with the idea that the Bears' efforts to shift to a stronger QB-driven offense has been mostly tailored to fit/please Cutler. Improving a terrible OL, improving your terrible receivers and trying to find an OC that isn't a mouthbreather is what a team is supposed to be doing.

 

Per your second paragraph, I agree. Solidifying the O would've benefited anyone, Neckbeard or Jay. If you look up thread, I chastised Raw for claiming it was dedicated to Cutler.

 

It WOULD have benefitted any QB, I never said it was 100% dedicated to Cutler. But the Bears had any QB for 50 years and didn't give him anything. Granted those were GMs other than Emery. But the Bears don't sign Pace right after trading for Jay if Orton was still the QB that year. The Bears probably don't hire Emery if he didn't completely vow to get Jay all the help in the world. They probably don't spend as much money as they did on the OL and use a 1st round pick on OL if Jay is not the QB. Of course, part of that is because they would have used those resources to find a QB.

 

It's what a team is supposed to do, but the Bears never did until they got the QB. And it's one thing to get weapons, OL, and offensive coaches, but it's another to go thru Turner, Martz, Tice, and Kromer. Not to mention, the fact that he was involved in the interviews of head coaches that eventually led to the hiring of Trestman.

 

Again, it's what teams with good QBs do and should do. But the fact that they aren't good enough doing that with Cutler means they should probably stop. Ideally, whoever the next coach is will bring in an OC who makes Cutler better and the Bears win tons of games, Cutler plays out this contract and finishes out his careeer as a Bear with multiple Superbowl titles. But that has almost 0 chance of happening with Shanahan due to his age. That's why I've said I'd be fine with even Kubiak. Because he can still be a decent coach with someone other than Jay at QB (Shanny could too, but he isn't likely to outlast Jay if things go well due to age). I don't want 2 years of decent success. I want sustained success over a long period of time.

I think you should stop. A Shanahan hire would likely mean more for Forte than for Cutler, anyway.

 

Any team with an above average QB is going to try to win with that QB. If you dont understand, or if you willfully ignore your personnel, then you are bad at building football teams.

 

You have fully bought in to the meatballery. When that happened, I'm unsure. But you have joined the ranks of the football stupid and adopted an unnecessary hatred for Cutler because of how many times the cameras show him sitting down on the sidelines and not smiling or attempting to inspire his team by giving a Leninistic speech on the true value of labor.

[rawaction]

If somebody is a meatball with a meatball viewpoint on Cutler, then yes, they are a meatball. There are, however, many different takes on Cutler that are not meatballish. I don't know what yours is, but I have a feeling it is five alarm hot.

 

I disagree with the idea that the Bears' efforts to shift to a stronger QB-driven offense has been mostly tailored to fit/please Cutler. Improving a terrible OL, improving your terrible receivers and trying to find an OC that isn't a mouthbreather is what a team is supposed to be doing.

 

Per your second paragraph, I agree. Solidifying the O would've benefited anyone, Neckbeard or Jay. If you look up thread, I chastised Raw for claiming it was dedicated to Cutler.

 

It WOULD have benefitted any QB, I never said it was 100% dedicated to Cutler. But the Bears had any QB for 50 years and didn't give him anything. Granted those were GMs other than Emery. But the Bears don't sign Pace right after trading for Jay if Orton was still the QB that year. The Bears probably don't hire Emery if he didn't completely vow to get Jay all the help in the world. They probably don't spend as much money as they did on the OL and use a 1st round pick on OL if Jay is not the QB. Of course, part of that is because they would have used those resources to find a QB.

 

It's what a team is supposed to do, but the Bears never did until they got the QB. And it's one thing to get weapons, OL, and offensive coaches, but it's another to go thru Turner, Martz, Tice, and Kromer. Not to mention, the fact that he was involved in the interviews of head coaches that eventually led to the hiring of Trestman.

 

Again, it's what teams with good QBs do and should do. But the fact that they aren't good enough doing that with Cutler means they should probably stop. Ideally, whoever the next coach is will bring in an OC who makes Cutler better and the Bears win tons of games, Cutler plays out this contract and finishes out his careeer as a Bear with multiple Superbowl titles. But that has almost 0 chance of happening with Shanahan due to his age. That's why I've said I'd be fine with even Kubiak. Because he can still be a decent coach with someone other than Jay at QB (Shanny could too, but he isn't likely to outlast Jay if things go well due to age). I don't want 2 years of decent success. I want sustained success over a long period of time.

I think you should stop. A Shanahan hire would likely mean more for Forte than for Cutler, anyway.

 

Any team with an above average QB is going to try to win with that QB. If you dont understand, or if you willfully ignore your personnel, then you are bad at building football teams.

 

You have fully bought in to the meatballery. When that happened, I'm unsure. But you have joined the ranks of the football stupid and adopted an unnecessary hatred for Cutler because of how many times the cameras show him sitting down on the sidelines and not smiling or attempting to inspire his team by giving a Leninistic speech on the true value of labor.

 

LOL. Yes, I [expletive] hate Cutler because he doesn't smile. That's my agenda here.

 

Also, they shouldn't do anything to help 30 year old Forte either. And for the 80th time, I never said they shouldn't try to win with Jay. My only point has been, they shouldn't hire (another) coach simply for the purpose of winning with Jay. The next coach should be hired to win period with or without Jay. If you try to win with Jay...what happens without Jay? For the first time, the team is looking at a near future without Cutler. I've clearly been on record of saying they shouldn't trade, cut or bench Cutler. But it's also just as clear they are thinking (or have done) all of those. If they are saying the next coach/GM will decide Cutler's future....then why would they hire a coach who's fate is going to be almost 100% tied to Cutler's?

[biittner77]

My only point has been, they shouldn't hire (another) coach simply for the purpose of winning with Jay. The next coach should be hired to win period with or without Jay.

 

Very few teams can pull off the system that's so good anyone can step in and play QB and they still win. To make that work requires a really good O line- something the Bears haven't had during the Cutler era. If you're paying your QB superstar money, you have to live or die with what he gives you. Unless you go the great defense/ lousy offense route but that is no longer a winning formula in today's NFL.

[Guest]

If somebody is a meatball with a meatball viewpoint on Cutler, then yes, they are a meatball. There are, however, many different takes on Cutler that are not meatballish. I don't know what yours is, but I have a feeling it is five alarm hot.

 

I disagree with the idea that the Bears' efforts to shift to a stronger QB-driven offense has been mostly tailored to fit/please Cutler. Improving a terrible OL, improving your terrible receivers and trying to find an OC that isn't a mouthbreather is what a team is supposed to be doing.

 

Per your second paragraph, I agree. Solidifying the O would've benefited anyone, Neckbeard or Jay. If you look up thread, I chastised Raw for claiming it was dedicated to Cutler.

 

It WOULD have benefitted any QB, I never said it was 100% dedicated to Cutler. But the Bears had any QB for 50 years and didn't give him anything. Granted those were GMs other than Emery. But the Bears don't sign Pace right after trading for Jay if Orton was still the QB that year. The Bears probably don't hire Emery if he didn't completely vow to get Jay all the help in the world. They probably don't spend as much money as they did on the OL and use a 1st round pick on OL if Jay is not the QB. Of course, part of that is because they would have used those resources to find a QB.

 

It's what a team is supposed to do, but the Bears never did until they got the QB. And it's one thing to get weapons, OL, and offensive coaches, but it's another to go thru Turner, Martz, Tice, and Kromer. Not to mention, the fact that he was involved in the interviews of head coaches that eventually led to the hiring of Trestman.

 

Again, it's what teams with good QBs do and should do. But the fact that they aren't good enough doing that with Cutler means they should probably stop. Ideally, whoever the next coach is will bring in an OC who makes Cutler better and the Bears win tons of games, Cutler plays out this contract and finishes out his careeer as a Bear with multiple Superbowl titles. But that has almost 0 chance of happening with Shanahan due to his age. That's why I've said I'd be fine with even Kubiak. Because he can still be a decent coach with someone other than Jay at QB (Shanny could too, but he isn't likely to outlast Jay if things go well due to age). I don't want 2 years of decent success. I want sustained success over a long period of time.

I think you should stop. A Shanahan hire would likely mean more for Forte than for Cutler, anyway.

 

Any team with an above average QB is going to try to win with that QB. If you dont understand, or if you willfully ignore your personnel, then you are bad at building football teams.

 

You have fully bought in to the meatballery. When that happened, I'm unsure. But you have joined the ranks of the football stupid and adopted an unnecessary hatred for Cutler because of how many times the cameras show him sitting down on the sidelines and not smiling or attempting to inspire his team by giving a Leninistic speech on the true value of labor.

 

LOL. Yes, I [expletive] hate Cutler because he doesn't smile. That's my agenda here.

 

Also, they shouldn't do anything to help 30 year old Forte either. And for the 80th time, I never said they shouldn't try to win with Jay. My only point has been, they shouldn't hire (another) coach simply for the purpose of winning with Jay. The next coach should be hired to win period with or without Jay. If you try to win with Jay...what happens without Jay? For the first time, the team is looking at a near future without Cutler. I've clearly been on record of saying they shouldn't trade, cut or bench Cutler. But it's also just as clear they are thinking (or have done) all of those. If they are saying the next coach/GM will decide Cutler's future....then why would they hire a coach who's fate is going to be almost 100% tied to Cutler's?

And your opinion is neither logical nor scientific.

[rawaction]

My only point has been, they shouldn't hire (another) coach simply for the purpose of winning with Jay. The next coach should be hired to win period with or without Jay.

 

Very few teams can pull off the system that's so good anyone can step in and play QB and they still win. To make that work requires a really good O line- something the Bears haven't had during the Cutler era. If you're paying your QB superstar money, you have to live or die with what he gives you. Unless you go the great defense/ lousy offense route but that is no longer a winning formula in today's NFL.

 

First, most teams either don't go thru QBs very often or have flat out bad QBs. So, they don't have to cater an offense to anyone else playing the position.

 

Secondly, nobody is saying you go great D, lousy O. With Cutler around, you aren't likely to be terrible offensively, because he's not a terrible QB. That's not at all what I'm saying. Basically, the Bears shouldn't turn down a defensive coach because of Cutler. They also shouldn't prefer a coach because of Cutler, the way they clearly did with Trestman. And I'm not even saying they should plan on getting rid of Cutler, but it's obvious that they are. If not this offseason, then next, or the one after that. Shanahan's biggest asset to getting the Bears job is that he coached Cutler in his only probowl and 4000 yard season. Why does that asset matter when the team has all but said they don't know if they are even going to have Cutler next year? What else does Shanahan have to offer? If the Bears decide to trade Cutler tomorrow or cut Cutler after 2015, would people still want Shanahan? If the answer is NO, like I suspect, then he shouldn't be hired.

[rawaction]

And your opinion is neither logical nor scientific.

 

Scientific? Who said it was?

 

Logical? Bears said next coach/GM will determine if Cutler is back. Obviously they don't feel he's the longterm answer if there's even a question now. Why hire a guy to make the best of 2 years in the grand scheme of things?

[Guest]

My only point has been, they shouldn't hire (another) coach simply for the purpose of winning with Jay. The next coach should be hired to win period with or without Jay.

 

Very few teams can pull off the system that's so good anyone can step in and play QB and they still win. To make that work requires a really good O line- something the Bears haven't had during the Cutler era. If you're paying your QB superstar money, you have to live or die with what he gives you. Unless you go the great defense/ lousy offense route but that is no longer a winning formula in today's NFL.

 

First, most teams either don't go thru QBs very often or have flat out bad QBs. So, they don't have to cater an offense to anyone else playing the position.

 

Secondly, nobody is saying you go great D, lousy O. With Cutler around, you aren't likely to be terrible offensively, because he's not a terrible QB. That's not at all what I'm saying. Basically, the Bears shouldn't turn down a defensive coach because of Cutler. They also shouldn't prefer a coach because of Cutler, the way they clearly did with Trestman. And I'm not even saying they should plan on getting rid of Cutler, but it's obvious that they are. If not this offseason, then next, or the one after that. Shanahan's biggest asset to getting the Bears job is that he coached Cutler in his only probowl and 4000 yard season. Why does that asset matter when the team has all but said they don't know if they are even going to have Cutler next year? What else does Shanahan have to offer? If the Bears decide to trade Cutler tomorrow or cut Cutler after 2015, would people still want Shanahan? If the answer is NO, like I suspect, then he shouldn't be hired.

 

Bears in offensive DVOA

2009 - 28

2010 - 28

2011* - 30

2012 - 26

[Guest]

I understand your coaching point, but your way off base about everything else raw. Putting OLjne resources being evidence of their "support for Jay" (a practically geriatric Pace at that). Even if you wanted to take our offense back to the damn Wing T you'd be putting resources into the line. And frankly if they were going to ignore OLine because they had Orton instead of Jay then I'm really [expletive] glad they had Jay because that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Every offense benefits from better OLine. Or WR.

 

Regarding Shannahan and his candidacy; he's clearly a highly qualified coach as evidence by the three other interviews he has secured this offseason and the prior NFL jobs he has held. He is a legitimate candidate in his own right, regardless of Jay Cutler. If he's not your favorite that's fine (he's probably not mosts favorite), but if you can't see that, I don't know what to say. Is it a benefit that Jay played his best ball ever under Shanny? Sure but that was also 7-8 years ago and I don't think anyone should expect the Pro Bowl Jay Cutler because he isn't physically the same. There's been no talk about the importance of the HC/QB relationship as there was with the Trestman hire. Phillips said a candidate would only meet with Jay if they wanted to. The outside rumblings give indication that offensive balance and restoring the defense are keys from ownership. There's nothing to indicate that were catering to Jay alone the way we did with Trestman, even if we hire Shanny.

[jersey cubs fan]

And your opinion is neither logical nor scientific.

 

Scientific? Who said it was?

 

Logical? Bears said next coach/GM will determine if Cutler is back. Obviously they don't feel he's the longterm answer if there's even a question now. Why hire a guy to make the best of 2 years in the grand scheme of things?

 

Because in the grand scheme of the NFL the only thing that matters is the next couple years. You can't determine where this team will be 8-10 years from now this offseason. You get the most out of what you have and then replace as needed.

[Guest]

Why hire a guy

you should ask the Cutler-less Raiders, Bills, and 49ers this.

[jersey cubs fan]

The Bears signed John Tait because of Chad Hutchinson.