UK1679666180

On the drive home today I was listening to local Arizona sports radio. Mike Jurecki, who is probably the main Cardinals insider said that he has heard that if Bowles gets a HC job, he will most likely be bringing Greg Roman on as his offensive coordinator. I would not be a fan of that move. If it's anything like san Francisco, it would regress Cutler and Forte. How so Runs the power running game, horrible in game play caller, changed their offensive style to 3 WR sets and shorter passes which killed the offense and Kaps production. He's not a QB that throws to a spot before the WR breaks him route which Cutler struggles with. Look at their regression, Forte at this stage can not handle the load Gore in that style of offense.

On the drive home today I was listening to local Arizona sports radio. Mike Jurecki, who is probably the main Cardinals insider said that he has heard that if Bowles gets a HC job, he will most likely be bringing Greg Roman on as his offensive coordinator. I would not be a fan of that move. If it's anything like san Francisco, it would regress Cutler and Forte.

My previous wish to have the Theo type was to prevent Phillips from continuing to have some say over football operations. I'm pleased with these results with Pace having full control.

Would this open the door for Doug Marrone? He was the Saints OC for several seasons while Pace was there.

Give me Bowles or Lazor and I'm happy.

Im pleasantly surprised with the hire.

It sucked either way.

I did, Cutler cost 22.5 mil.

Compared to what they have now? Depends on what direction they go and how they would've allocated that extra cap space/draft pick(s). Emery probably would've signed another bad aging veteran. If they rebuild this year by letting Tillman, Briggs, leave as FAs and cut Marshall, there's nothing here. Cutler is an expensive QB on a bad team in every phase. You can quickly turn a team around if the chips fall right, but they have a lot of work to do.

How often does tagging a QB actually work out, either in terms of ultimately signing them to a more team-friendly deal or trading them for something of value? The only tag and trade I can actually think of was Cassel. I don't think anyone has ever tagged and traded their number 1 QB. Not really sure about tag and sign long term history or tag and play out the year are... I'm guessing there isn't s huge sample to draw from. Wouldn't be my choice even with hindsight, but I'm willing to play out the scenarios with UK... http://nflphilosophy.com/jay-cutler-and-the-bears-contract-dilemma/ NE received the 34th pick for Cassel. I imagine Cutler would've received more given that he has a better track record and talent. It would put the Bears in QB hell, McCown would've come back, they would've drafted a QB early (maybe the EIU kid), and likely finished with around 5 wins considering Emery would've spent that extra 17 or so mil pretty poorly most likely.

You're probably right, it just seems a lot to give up (both with an early pick or a long-term contract) on such a helter-skelter position similar to drafting a HS pitcher with the 1st pick. Catering an offense to that QBs strengths (who might project as a 2nd or 3rd rounder, like Bill Walsh who valued accuracy and built his offense around that) and hope he develops during the duration of that QBs team's friendly contract the 1st 3 years to allocate that money elsewhere. As CCP mentioned, it's not the position you want to be (having a top 5 QB is) but if you're stuck in QB hell, it's your best shot, especially with this years crop of QBs. If I'm TB, I'd draft Gregory 1st and Grayson in 3rd-4th range over Mariota and the later pick.

No, I'm saying if you're in QB hell like many teams are currently in like STL (likely expected to be medicore most years) and you're exploring the option of inking Bradford to a long-term contract, drafting one in the 10-15 range, or taking a shot on one later in the draft.... Would that money be better off allocated somewhere else than Bradford (even healthy)? Would that pick be better off on a 1st rounder that often has a much higher success ratio of panning out than QB? Drafting several QBs with several picks later (2 thru 4 as typically west coast offenses require accuracy 1st which tend to drop some QBs) and the one that fits. Teams like GB, NE, etc don't have to worry about that. I guess this also falls into the inability to draft QBs given the high amount of bust ratios. Obviously if you're Indy and you have Manning and Luck at #1, this theory goes out the window.

With hindsight going back to December 13'/January '14? Tag him & then trade him, like KC tried to do with B. Albert (and actually find and accept an offer). There were three options, try and win it all with Cutler, try and quickly rebuild by developing a QB, or win with a patchwork QB. Tagging him was not an option. People need to stop pretending it was. There was never a realistic scenario with a positive outcome in which the Bears tagged and traded Cutler. How wasn't it an option? Cutler even said that he wouldn't take it personally if they franchise and he wouldn't be upset about it.

There's a few elite QB's that maybe someone could say justify their contracts. Then there's a whole middle tier of "meh" QB's that get paid too much because nobody wants to be stuck with the really crappy ones. The "meh" QB's get paid too much and can never live up to the money they get. It's just how the NFL works. The question becomes if that is the way the NFL should work. With the new rookie wage scale, there is a new class of QB's: the relatively cheap ones. And the playoffs have been dominated by the elite QB's and the cheap ones the last couple of years. About 1/3 of the league is non-elite QB's on big deals, and they've had 3 total representatives in the division round the last couple of years: Rivers last year (who lost) and Flacco and Romo this year who are underdogs. The odds of winning a Super Bowl with one of those guys is significantly lower than it was 5-10 years ago. It's pretty low even if you have the best non-elite guy, and Cutler isn't that. The Bears definitely were following a trend, but the question is if it was a trend worth following. It hasn't worked out for many teams lately, and there's a potential of an NBA like treadmill team trend developing. Look at Seattle, their good fortunes and being able to operate with a cheap productive QB are coming to an end. It might be something worth looking into similar to young elite pitching prospects or closers, where there's safety in numbers. When are teams willing to allocate huge chunks of payroll towards mediocre QBs, given the up an down nature of the 3rd and 4th tier QBs getting paid huge amounts, would it be wise to try and draft several QBs in one draft with different strengths/weaknesses and have one develop for 3 years then start the process over? Seattle has had great financial flexibility because of Wilson.

With hindsight going back to December 13'/January '14? Tag him & then trade him, like KC tried to do with B. Albert (and actually find and accept an offer). There were three options, try and win it all with Cutler, try and quickly rebuild by developing a QB, or win with a patchwork QB.

great googily moogily. Yes, if you miss a quarter of your games heading into a large contract, your injury rate factors. I'm not looking for Favre but in negotiations that should factor.

You're picking and choosing at this point. And the 22.5 mil last year was ranked? Where his DYAR was 16th, DVOA was 21st, and his QBR was 25th among the qualified QBs? That's right, it was the largest cap hit in the League. That's kinda my point. Where he ranks contract-wise doesn't matter, because they structured the contract to give him more money in the first year simply for cap flexibility later in the contract. It looks ridiculous now because he clearly had a bad year. But at the time, it made a lot of sense. The other point is that there's some mediocre QB's that are making way too much money (Smith/Bradford) because there's such a dearth of QB talent out there. Yep, Bears gave Cutler too much money. Emery lost his job over it. That doesn't change the fact that Cutler is the best the Bears can do as far as QB talent right now, and the best move is to make the best we can of it. The problem is you're worrying about him being "worth the contract". Put it out of your head. He's not going to be "worth the contract". Like you said, it's almost impossible for him to be so. There was almost no way for Alfonso Soriano to justify his contract, and there's little chance that Derrick Rose ever justifies his contract. That doesn't mean that those players can't, or in Soriano's case didn't, perform very solidly and be a highly productive member of their teams. I was for the contract, I was wrong and should've looked at it more carefully but I thought at the time it was a good deal. He's here and if play doesn't improve from him, he'll be an anchor for two more years (Hell, Smith and Cutler were similar as far as production last year) I just find it funny when someone says Cutler had a bad year that it's some kind of stereotype that exists because the avg. Bears fan always wants the backup QB. Cutler should be the starter because like you said, they don't have anyone better and the draft class is poor (although, I'd consider trading down for Hundley depending if he falls and let him develop) and lacks character. Cutler isn't the reason why they sucked, he was an above avg. QB in talent that played below avg last year much like others did for the Bears. It's very difficult to judge a player without judging his contract too when they underperform, the degrees are different the higher they earn. Like you said, that translates to all sports.

You're picking and choosing at this point. And the 22.5 mil last year was ranked? Where his DYAR was 16th, DVOA was 21st, and his QBR was 25th among the qualified QBs? That's right, it was the largest cap hit in the League. We're judging him based on the length of his contract, which will be a 3yr deal before he gets cut. 1st year was a failure, he has to have 2 good to great years to justify it at this point. So if Goony wants to parrot Stannis with his meatball talk and how Chicago fans love to hate their "anchors", look at Cutler's production last year and the cap space he will be occupying over the 3 years of his deal. If Cutler can somehow increase his production ala Romo, then he'll justify that contract. After year one, he didn't, there's no advanced statistical measure that quantifies that he came close to being worth that contract. That's not all Cutler's fault (he is too prone with the turnovers and not this year but in years' past been injury prone). injury prone, lol. [expletive] off meatball. there is no justifying contracts. you pay what you pay so you don't have to go be Tennessee or Jacksonville or Tampa Bay or require a herculean effort from your defense just to go 9-7 and miss the playoffs like Buffalo. Before this year, he was on IR in '11 for 6 games, missed 2 games with the concussion against the Giants in 12', and last year missed several games with groin/ankle injuries. There's no justifying contracts? Please amuse me.

You're picking and choosing at this point. And the 22.5 mil last year was ranked? Where his DYAR was 16th, DVOA was 21st, and his QBR was 25th among the qualified QBs? That's right, it was the largest cap hit in the League. We're judging him based on the length of his contract, which will be a 3yr deal before he gets cut. 1st year was a failure, he has to have 2 good to great years to justify it at this point. So if Goony wants to parrot Stannis with his meatball talk and how Chicago fans love to hate their "anchors", look at Cutler's production last year and the cap space he will be occupying over the 3 years of his deal. If Cutler can somehow increase his production ala Romo, then he'll justify that contract. After year one, he didn't, there's no advanced statistical measure that quantifies that he came close to being worth that contract. That's not all Cutler's fault (he is too prone with the turnovers and not this year but in years' past been injury prone).

They were desperate for a franchise QB, brought in Cutler, late when they added pieces around him, ignored the offensive line and defense which stacked the deck against him. I had no problem with what they gave up for him, hate the current contract though. Stannis acts like a dolt if someone says anything negative about Cutler but he's correct that he's an above average QB that led the league in turnovers. Comparisons to George were incorrect, Cutler's last 3 years have a similarity score closest to the mid 90s Testaverde. As Sneakypower mentioned which not surprisingly received no response that the QB rating correlates with every other QB rating going higher as well given the offensive trend of the league.

I'm disappointed they likely won't interview Shanahan, I'm curious to see what he has to say about his disaster in Washington. Im guessing Snyder is the obvious answer.

Ole Miss played well. UK is the best team in the nation but they can be beat, hopefully they learned they can't walk in there and expect teams to roll over. They're not as good as the 96 team.

LSU has had a solid recruiting class this will be their best group since the Shaq, Stanley Roberts, and Chris Jackson. Bragg will decide later this week and it's between UK, Kansas, and Illinois. Im guessing Kansas.

Would I still be a loon if I complain about the possibility of Toub and Ballard and the likely failure by the FO to bring in the right people?

DeMarco Murray also mysteriously avoided a helmet removal penalty after scoring a touchdown. That one didn't bother me too much, it was accidental. However if you're going to enforce it there could be some justification