Banedon

Yep. I'll really be disappointed if we don't win this one.

That's ugly. Shows how clueless the Dolphins are. Meanwhile, the Packers go from Favre to Rodgers, while developing Brunell, Hasslebeck and Flynn as backups. Meanwhile the rest of the NFC North has had at least one of those guys on the Dolphins list as QB at one point or another.

Saw this and thought I'd post it since were talking about the difficulty of filling the QB position....

I don't really understand why they vote for as many players for MVP as they do. Why doesn't everyone just vote for, say...top 2. That should surely be enough to break any ties. Voting down to 10th place seems ridiculous.

So Aaron Rodgers was upset about the 60 minutes segment on him last week and mentioned it a couple times this week. ROFL

Brewer was hot to start the season last year too. I have little doubt that'll cool off.

fwiw, all these guys have higher qb ratings than Cutler Its not a list of QB ability, it's a list of where teams stand on their QB situation. I thought I made that pretty clear. I'm almost positive the Bears have no reservations about Jay being their long term answer, righty or wrongly, while the 49ers spent last offseason rolling out the red carpet for Peyton Manning. The Bears might have a few reservations based on concussions.

Brees was a success in San Diego before he ever had success in New Orleans. I have no doubt that Drew Brees would have been a good quarterback on the Browns. I have plenty of doubt. Going to a dome team with a high powered offense mentality was perfect for him. At the same time, it's not like New Orleans has a great history of making QBs. It was just the right place at the right time for all involved. I have no doubt that he'd struggle more in Cleveland than he has in NO. And I'm not trying at all to minimze what coaching/scheme means to an NFL team and it's quarterback. But even if you have that coaching/scheme, you need a good QB to work with, and that's where the luck element comes into play. Some teams manage to get that, and others don't.

Brees was a success in San Diego before he ever had success in New Orleans. I have no doubt that Drew Brees would have been a good quarterback on the Browns.

How could you possibly say this seriously. Because of the Packers, and the 49ers of old, the Colts. Broncos had Cutler, did better with him than we have, then managed to get Manning. Falcons go from Vick to Ryan. Teams do much better than we do, even if it is difficult. Mostly, the overall point is that the strong likelihood is we will go back to poor QB play after Cutler leaves, barring some kind of organizational overhaul. It's just not a strength of the team. Drafting and developing defense is. Other teams can't do that very well. So because 5 teams have had some reasonable luck with QB's, finding QB talent isn't a league wide problem? The Colts didn't have to do any major evaluation or anything to get their 2 QB's. They just managed to suck in the correct years. Neither Manning or Luck are sneaky out of nowhere QB's. This is a terrible argument. It's a terrible argument to dismiss it as luck. Plenty of teams hit on a top QB in the draft and blow it in development/scheme. Sorry, I just don't think it's pure luck. Come on! Andrew Luck comes out last year and the Colts don't get him. How is that not luck?

How could you possibly say this seriously. Because of the Packers, and the 49ers of old, the Colts. Broncos had Cutler, did better with him than we have, then managed to get Manning. Falcons go from Vick to Ryan. Teams do much better than we do, even if it is difficult. Mostly, the overall point is that the strong likelihood is we will go back to poor QB play after Cutler leaves, barring some kind of organizational overhaul. It's just not a strength of the team. Drafting and developing defense is. Other teams can't do that very well. So because 5 teams have had some reasonable luck with QB's, finding QB talent isn't a league wide problem? The Colts didn't have to do any major evaluation or anything to get their 2 QB's. They just managed to suck in the correct years. Neither Manning or Luck are sneaky out of nowhere QB's. This is a terrible argument.

... Yes, those are things that happen when protection breaks down.

Not to pick on you, but these kind of statements always bother me. Having a great defense shouldn't excuse the Bears (or any other team) from maximizing the talent at what is far and away the most important position on the team. If the Bears could get Aaron Rodgers, for example, I would hope they'd try everything in their power to do it, regardless of how the team is constructed. I get the playcalling arguments, but Cutler now has two of the best playmakers in the league, so we can't really blame his performance on a lack of talent surrounding him. And even the playcalling argument has its holes. I remember someone posting an article after the Packers game breaking down some of Cutler's decisionmaking, and a lot of the botched plays were based on his own choices on where to throw the ball. Agreed for the most part, except I think you can still put at least a portion of Cutler's troubles on the O-line.

Looks like so far, most ppl picking the 49ers.

Boy, he's really bent out of shape this week.

You know a team just gave up 2 future 1st round draft picks, 2 2nd rounders, and a 3rd round pick just to switch 1 1st round pick with another team drafting 4 spots ahead of them to pick a hot shot college QB, right? Which is weird, cuz they'd just had a good QB back in 1985.

It would help if they had a real OC as well. I've tried to give Tice a reasonably lengthy leash, but I'm starting to come around to the idea that Jay might have to learn yet another new offense in the next year or two.

are you kidding me? The Colts and Packers haven't had a lot of trouble with the position, but nearly every other franchise has struggled with it for decades at a time. San Fran went from Joe Montana to Steve Young. But they haven't exactly been rolling out the studs since the 90's. New England went from Bledsoe to Brady, but prior to that they had garbage. That is why it is so important to protect the one you have when you get it, give him all the tools you can to maximize his abilities, but first and foremost, recognize what you have when you have it. Washington (pre-Griffin) has gone through as many QB's if not more than the Bears over the last quarter century. The Browns have had a hilarious mess of QB's take the helm. Miami hasn't found a solution since Marino retired. The list goes on and on. Arizona has had Jake Plummer and the last gasp of Kurt Warner. Tennessee, Oakland, Minnesota, the Lions pre-Stafford....

NFL quarterback is the hardest position in sports to fill. Period.

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.

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.

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.

Blame IMB.

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.