Sammy Sofa

I don't think I'm really saying anything all that outlandish here. "Some guys are more prone to injuries, maybe consider if the guy with 3+ injuries in 3 years is one of them when evaluating his huge new contract". The rest is a bunch of "uh huh" and "nuh uh" about whether Cutler is one of those guys. I just think saying someone is prone to injuries while glossing over the details is a tad...simplistic.

he missed a game after the Giant game because the line couldn't protect him. He missed a game after getting a cheap-shot from a Texan player on a busted play. I think those are the only concussion games. Well, I was talking throughout his playing days, not just in the NFL. Not that it's an argument against signing him.

Yes. I'm not even saying anything definitive about Cutler, only that it's something that has to be considered when making such a huge commitment. Cutler's had at least 3 different injuries in the last 3 years that have caused him to miss games. There's a point where reasonable people can agree that a player is "injury prone" or more likely to miss time with injury, be it from re-aggravating past injuries, bad genetics, external factors like teammates/coaching(e.g. crappy OL and 7 step drops), etc. Reasonable people can disagree on what that point is and if Cutler is at that point, which is why I found the response to UK a bit much. Too many of the responses are focused on this one track that if you can't physically draw a line between two injuries, that there's no possible way they're illustrative or predictive of anything. I'm not saying definitively they are, but rather that you can't say they're not because of what all has transpired with Cutler the last few years. This just seems like a pretty flimsy theory seemingly being pushed just because of the bold part.

Well, to be fair, it's not like concussions just happen in a vacuum; he's had them several times over the years, yes?

You don't have to draw a straight line between the two injuries for it to be illustrative of the point. "Injuries beget injuries" means not only that you can hurt yourself compensating for one injury, but also that injuries(and especially 2nd and 3rd injuries like Cutler has already sustained) happen to players who (for whatever reason) are more prone to injuries. That makes no sense at all. Because he broke his thumb he's more prone to a groin injury? It's silly and unrelated. The groin and ankle...that makes sense. They were close together and could reasonably argued that there's a relation. No, he's more prone to a groin injury because he's Jay Cutler. Breaking his thumb opens us up to the idea that Jay Cutler is more prone to injuries than his previous performance('07-'10) would have indicated, and having multiple injuries in the years that follow corroborate the idea. What I'm getting at is that "guy who suffers multiple unrelated injuries" is just as indicative of future injury as the guy who hurts his groin then hurts his ankle by overcompensating, just for slightly different reasons. I don't think you can generalize something as broad as "susceptible to injuries" without breaking down the circumstances of the injuries. Like people have said, I get being concerned about the relation of the groin and ankle injuries, but would you be saying the same thing if the reasons he had missed time had all been along the lines of the thumb?

Yeah, the only fear I have is that Jay gets injured every year. True, but I don't know how that fear goes away, regardless of who is the QB. The only way to hedge against that is to bring McCown back. THE ONLY way is to re-sign McCown? Seriously? OK, the BEST way. The easiest way. Sheesh, Mr. Correcto. It's not necessarily either of those things depending on how much money he wants. The McCown shindig should be encouraging that the new offensive approach can be worked with different QB's, not "OMG, THEY NEED TO BRING BACK MCCOWN JUST IN CASE." If they can get him back for dirt cheap, great, but if not, oh well. I have little doubt they'd be able to find someone else who could step in as a capable backup.

Yeah, the only fear I have is that Jay gets injured every year. True, but I don't know how that fear goes away, regardless of who is the QB. The only way to hedge against that is to bring McCown back. THE ONLY way is to re-sign McCown? Seriously?

Excellent news so far. Now bring me a Tanaka signing and I will feast mightily.

2 days too late More like 2 years.

GROSS. As people have said, I'm of the "just make the defense at least less shitty" camp; they don't have to be turned into world beaters for this team to be competitive.

I hope so too but I doubt it. Why? Because I believe Emery and Trestman believe they can find a QB on the cheap and use the cap savings to improve the D. Seems kinda backwards in a "take a step backwards to take a step forwards"-kinda way, but alright. I sure hope they don't think that way.

I hope so too but I doubt it. Why?

Yeah, the bullpen thing keeps making me hope that there are some crazy Tanaka+-type moves coming.

You will be gutted by a starving steer for our amusement and then thrown on the pile of burning Christians. AVE CAESAR.

LET US DRINK AND FEAST TOGETHER, SIR.

I feel like this post just walked up to me and slapped me in the middle of a crowded room and then kicked me in the nuts before I could even react.

I hope the Bears win, I hope Rogers is stabbed in the heart by his [expletive] collarbone, and I hope that big neon cowboy falls on you.

Probably because Aaron Rodgers is much better than Jay Cutler. Top 3 player in the NFL. He's still coming back from a major injury; it's not like being a better QB magically makes you better at healing or something. Right, but I think the rationale with the Bears was that a rusty Cutler may not be better than McCown. I don't think there's as much disagreement over the fact that a rusty Rodgers is still much better than Matt Flynn. This is true.

Probably because Aaron Rodgers is much better than Jay Cutler. Top 3 player in the NFL. He's still coming back from a major injury; it's not like being a better QB magically makes you better at healing or something.

Pretty sure the meatballs howling about Cutler's rustiness didn't even put that much thought into it as you did with this post.

I like how with Cutler coming back people were screaming left and right that he'd be too rusty to start, but with Rogers there's barely any mention of the idea.

Why not? It's not just the FO; it's also (mainly) the owners. The hope/expectations was that you'd have new money taking over a major market franchise and they'd be able to act like a big market franchise while rebuilding the farm. Agree totally. The deal the Ricketts took from Zell certainly seems to have handcuffed them and that is quite disappointing. My comments were about those of us who are blaming Theo & Co. for not being able to put winning teams on the field the past two seasons. If there are any, that is, I may have misunderstood people's comments all along... BTW, what's the gif in your sig from? Comedy Bang! Bang!: http://www.ifc.com/shows/comedy-bang-bang And yeah, personally, my frustration is much more at the owners than the FO; the FO is far from infallible, but I simply don't believe that they're willfully handcuffing themselves from using money that's actually available to them.

Why not? It's not just the FO; it's also (mainly) the owners. The hope/expectations was that you'd have new money taking over a major market franchise and they'd be able to act like a big market franchise while rebuilding the farm.

Farm system rankings are about the only "measurable" aspect; until they actually start bringing these players up and they pan out or they trade some for some impact players then the main measurables are still just a lot of hoping and wishing right now.

I am sadly stuck at work tonight; can anyone PM me a game feed?