397 replies to this topic

[kalbear]

Quote

Jay Cutler has been playing behind possibly the worst Oline in the league, and has had one NFL caliber receiver to throw the ball to in four years.

Cutler has been in a far more complicated spot as far as measuring QB stats goes.

Sure - but he certainly hasn't elevated that team's game much, has he? That's the real issue I see. Rodgers didn't always have these weapons. Brady didn't either. The receivers in New Orleans were nothing to write home about before Brees got there. Cutler has one of the best RBs in the league, a great receiver and a couple of decent ones. There aren't many teams that have it much better and plenty who have worse - and they still do okay.

Compare, for instance, to RG3 - he has Pierre Garcon, Alfred Morris and a fairly sketchy line. He's still more accurate, more poised, and less prone to fuckupery than Cutler.

I think Cutler can be a very good QB. If he had a better line that would help tremendously. But it's not just about the line with him; half of the sacks he took were well over 3 seconds, which basically means they were his fault. His mechanics are still horrible. He still makes gutwrenchingly bad decisions here and there. That doesn't make him hideously bad, but it does mean that he is not the best out there.

[Noroldis]

Maithanet, on 21 January 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

I don't know how you can possibly evaluate Jay Cutler as being ahead of Aaron Rodgers.  When Rodgers had a defense, he won the Super Bowl.  And the past two years without one, he has still put up dramatically better numbers than Cutler across the board.  He is far ahead in touchdowns, interceptions, wins, passer rating, really any metric you want to use, and all with a noticeably worse defense than the Bears have.  What are you seeing that could possibly put Cutler ahead in this comparison?

I certainly don't believe Cutler to be better than Rodgers, but IMO Cutler has to deal with having the worst O-line of any of the QBs under discussion regarding being elite. Seriously, too often that O-line looks like Swiss cheese and leaves Cutler running for his life. If he had a better O-line in front of him, one that could give him time in the pocket and prevent him being injured season after seaon, the Bears would be doing much better as a team. Cutler would be able to hone his skills and deal with his weaknesses; instead in the back of his mind he has to wonder play after play if his O-line is going to break down yet again. That has to have taken a toll on his decision-making after several seasons.

As for who is elite, to me an elite QB is one who's reliably great (Peyton, Rodgers, Brady, Brees) instead of just inconsistently great (like Eli Manning and Joe Flacco). Yes, even elite QBs will have the occasional crappy game, but then most of the time they come back the next week and score several touchdowns. They're the QBs who can put up 10+ wins season after season, whose teams are seemingly perennial playoffs/Superbowl contenders. And when the big playoff games arrive, they perform. They can certainly be defeated during those games - after all, in the end there can be only one QB left standing with the Lombardi in his hands - but the other team knows it's been in a fight.

[James Arryn]

Rodgers release and escape-ability might go a long way towards making his line look middle of the road, though. I'd argue the same for the receivers except I do think they're damned good.

[Maithanet]

Reposado, on 21 January 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

And while I lovethe cutler enthusiasm, if I was starting an nfl team now, I would take rodgers in a micro second. Hes better and younger than tne other 3 true elites. After 2011, I would have taken cutler 5th hands down. Right now, the best of tbe nonelite is a debate with many possible answers.

I agree, Rodgers is the obviously correct choice.  If I could get some guarantee that Griffin could stay healthy (something like an average of Brady, Manning, Brees, who have all missed significant time at some point in their career) then I would take Griffin over Rodgers.  But I'm a Griffin homer, and no such guarantee exists, so the point is moot.

Quote

Rodgers has been playing with the best receiving corps in football

You've got to be kidding me.  They're good.  But not any better than what the Lions, or Ravens, or Cowboys or Falcons or Giants or other teams I'm forgetting can field.

Quote

Eh, 7-1 and looking like a top5 (number one imo)team this year preinjury. 7-3 and looking like a top5 team last year preinjury

Hes done fine  

Cutler has done well in Chicago, I'm not arguing otherwise.  But we're talking about whether he is Elite (and specifically whether he is better than Rodgers).  And he's not.

And injury sounds like a cop-out to me.  Good teams deal with injuries.  Bad teams whine about them.  Sometimes injuries rob your chance to win a Super Bowl one year, but that's why your career is more than just one year.

[Independent George]

How the heck do these threads always wind up a referendum on Jay Cutler?

[Triskele]

Independent George, on 21 January 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

How the heck do these threads always wind up a referendum on Jay Cutler?

I guess he's the R. Scott Bakker of the NFL.

[kalbear]

I have no idea. He wasn't even in the playoffs this year.

Ultimately I'm starting to warm to the notion that the best way to measure a QB is by how they elevate their receivers and RB's game around them. Manning going to Denver and making Thomas a star and Eric Decker a star is an example, given that they barely had an effect prior to this (with the exception of a few memorable games). Or for that matter players like Pierre Garcon or Brandon Stokeley. Brady and Branch, Patten and even Welker is another example. Brees with almost everyone on the NO roster. Ben with Santonio Holmes.

Brandon Marshall had somewhat better stats this year compared to last year, but only somewhat. And last year he played in Miami, being thrown to by Matt Moore. I just don't see the big improvement that I would like to with Cutler. I don't see Earl Bennett becoming great, or Devin Hester, or even Matt Forte. These guys should be getting better.

[kalbear]

Triskele, on 21 January 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

I guess he's the R. Scott Bakker of the NFL.

WHAT DO YOU SEE

[awesome possum]

Maithanet, on 21 January 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

Not to mention a terrible defense (at least for the past two seasons).  I'm not saying the Bears are stacked with talent, but they are pretty good in a lot of areas.  If you say that the reason that Rodgers and several other quarterbacks have succeeded so much more than Cutler since arriving at Chicago is entirely due to lack of talent...it just doesn't add up.

There are many factors, and I think the major difference between Cutler and Rodgers is that Rodgers has been in the same system since he was drafted.  He sat a bench and his only job was to learn their system like the back of his hand before even playing a serious snap.

Cutler excelled under Shanahan, and then had to learn from such offensive stalwarts as Ron Turner, Mike Tice, and 2010 Mike Martz who still thinks it was his system that made the Greatest Show on Turf and not a Hall of Fame QB, RB, WR duo, and LT performing in his system.

And then the lack of talent.  Rodgers has an offensive line that is unjustly maligned because he holds onto the ball too much and gets sacked.  Cutler has the same problem, but the difference is Rodgers has weapons who make it worth it when he shuffles around and then makes the throw.  I think Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, James Jones, and Donald Driver (from last year back) could start on any team in the league.  Cutler has had Devin Hester and Johnny Knox, who would be #3s at best on most competitive NFL squads.

Now, Rodgers has definitely made the most of his situation and is an unbelievable QB.  Cutler really has not and still falls in the "can be unbelievable" category.  The window is definitely starting to close for him.  I still love the guy, but with Lovie Smith out there will be a new whipping boy for the blood-thirsty Chicago crowd and that's going to be Cutler from here on out.

Cutler has been average through his tenure with the Bears, but it's not until you see how his backups perform in the offense that you realize accomplishing average has been pretty damned impressive.

Independent George, on 21 January 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

How the heck do these threads always wind up a referendum on Jay Cutler?

I didn't even start it this time!

kalbear, on 21 January 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Brandon Marshall had somewhat better stats this year compared to last year, but only somewhat. And last year he played in Miami, being thrown to by Matt Moore. I just don't see the big improvement that I would like to with Cutler. I don't see Earl Bennett becoming great, or Devin Hester, or even Matt Forte. These guys should be getting better.

Only somewhat?  37 more receptions, a little under 300 more yards, and 5 more touchdowns only qualifies as somewhat?

IMO those guys aren't getting better because they've had Daryl freaking Drake as their position coach their entire careers.  How that guy kept a job while the OCs kept rotating is beyond me.  He's terrible.  And I may be mistaken, but it's not Jay Cutler's job to teach his receivers how to run routes or catch balls, which has been a problem for years.

[kalbear]

Quote

Only somewhat?  37 more receptions, a little under 300 more yards, and 5 more touchdowns only qualifies as somewhat?

Yes, that's only somewhat. Compare to what Welker's production looked like. Compare to what Stokely's production looked like. Marshall was also targeted about 50 more times, so that's not all that surprising.

Quote

And I may be mistaken, but it's not Jay Cutler's job to teach his receivers how to run routes or catch balls, which has been a problem for years.

Actually it can be his job. That certainly was Manning's job coming into Denver. That's what Brady did in his offseason with Welker and Moss. Think the best QBs don't spend stupid amounts of time working with their receivers and line? Sorry, that's on Jay to an extent.

Edited by kalbear, 21 January 2013 - 04:46 PM.

[James Arryn]

awesome possum, on 21 January 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

There are many factors, and I think the major difference between ______and Rodgers is that Rodgers has been in the same system since he was drafted.

I think we can say this about many quarterbacks, to different degree. AR might serve as a new template for how to develop quarterbacks, or would have before this new generation blew the doors off preconceptions.

For example, especially before his shoulder went and turned his arm from very good to average/below average, I think we could say that if the 49ers draft Rodgers and put him through what Smith went through and Smith was nurtured the way Rodgers was, we'd see something of a flip in careers. I am unsure Smith would have gotten quite as good, but we really don't know...they were very comparable at draft time and Smith is also exceptionally bright.

Just as a for instance.

[Independent George]

I've spent a lot of ink (er, pixels!) defending Jay Cutler on these boards, but comparing him to Rodgers is utterly ridiculous. Cutler is far better than most people think, but Rodgers has been absurdly good the last few years.

[Maithanet]

Independent George, on 21 January 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

I've spent a lot of ink (er, pixels!) defending Jay Cutler on these boards, but comparing him to Rodgers is utterly ridiculous. Cutler is far better than most people think, but Rodgers has been absurdly good the last few years.

I always find it interesting the arguments I get into on this board.  In the past year I have been on both sides of:
Tony Romo - Choker or not so Choker?
Jay Cutler - Terrible or Best Evar?
Green Bay Receivers - Best in League or Below Average?

In case you are wondering, the answer is both, neither, and neither.  I live up to my custom title.

Edited by Maithanet, 21 January 2013 - 05:04 PM.

[Independent George]

Maithanet, on 21 January 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

I always find it interesting the arguments I get into on this board.  In the past year I have been on both sides of:
Tony Romo - Choker or not so Choker?
Jay Cutler - Terrible or Best Evar?
Green Bay Receivers - Best in League or Below Average?

In case you are wondering, the answer is both, neither, and neither.  I live up to my custom title.

It's completely in line with the frequent "Jaime Lannister: Paragon of Virtue" or "Ned Stark is Evil" discussions on these boards.

[Reposado]

James Arryn, on 21 January 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

I think we can say this about many quarterbacks, to different degree. AR might serve as a new template for how to develop quarterbacks, or would have before this new generation blew the doors off preconceptions.

For example, especially before his shoulder went and turned his arm from very good to average/below average, I think we could say that if the 49ers draft Rodgers and put him through what Smith went through and Smith was nurtured the way Rodgers was, we'd see something of a flip in careers. I am unsure Smith would have gotten quite as good, but we really don't know...they were very comparable at draft time and Smith is also exceptionally bright.

Just as a for instance.

Somewhat but Rodgers has a crazy arm. He would have been good anywhere.

Smith would certainly have ended up better in better circumstances but I'm not sure if he would have ended up a pro bowler anywhere. Except maybe baltimore

[Jaime L]

Reposado, on 21 January 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Somewhat but Rodgers has a crazy arm. He would have been good anywhere.

Smith would certainly have ended up better in better circumstances but I'm not sure if he would have ended up a pro bowler anywhere. Except maybe baltimore

Not to mention a lightning fast release and smart mobility - athletically Rodgers has all the gifts you'd want if you were drawing up a prototype QB for this era. And more than anything he carries that chip on his shoulder from being slighted that makes him work as hard as anyone. Maybe he loses some of that if he goes #1 overall to SF, but I think still the fact that no major colleges wanted him and that he'd have to go the JUCO route stays with him and fuels him. I think in retrospect he'd have been good anywhere, but he's more refined because he a ) went to GB and b ) had the time on the bench to observe Favre, the west coast offense and learn. Hell, maybe he goes elsewhere and becomes Jay Cutler. There's a fun alternate universe playing out somewhere.

As for Alex Smith, he's as big time "What If" in my mind. As good as Harbaugh made him this last year and a half I think most of us can admit he doesn't have that palapable "it" quality the best QBs have. But depending on the day, I can go either way down the: "all the hits he took and the disaster of an offense he played on in his formative years sent him halfway down the David Carr path" road or "there's fundamental QBing attributes he was never gonna possess." Sure he's smart, but so is Ryan Fizpatrick, doesn't mean you have those intangible qualities necessary to be one of the really good QBs that seem to populate the sport these days.

Edited by Jaime L, 21 January 2013 - 07:14 PM.

[DanteGabriel]

viniS, on 21 January 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

I didn't mean to say that he's all arm, because he's not, but it's more important to him than it was to Manning. If only because he's grown so fond of bullet-ing it into tight coverage for those TE's.

Well I'm glad you're not saying Brady is all arm, because it'd be hard to square the "Brady is dependent on arm strength" theory you just formulated with the "Brady throws nothing but short passes" comment back when you were lecturing us about the history of passing offenses in the NFL.  After all, I thought Brady was the one who invented the short passing game to overcome the deep ball offenses that Joe Montana made fashionable, or some shit like that.

[Triskele]

DanteGabriel, on 21 January 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

Well I'm glad you're not saying Brady is all arm, because it'd be hard to square the "Brady is dependent on arm strength" theory you just formulated with the "Brady throws nothing but short passes" comment back when you were lecturing us about the history of passing offenses in the NFL.  After all, I thought Brady was the one who invented the short passing game to overcome the deep ball offenses that Joe Montana made fashionable, or some shit like that.

One of the traits that makes Brady stand out to me is his footwork.  It's uncanny.

He isn't mobile at all, but his pocket presence and his ability to maintain eyes downfield while staying aligned toward the throw are a thing to watch.

[James Arryn]

Jaime L, on 21 January 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

Not to mention a lightning fast release and smart mobility - athletically Rodgers has all the gifts you'd want if you were drawing up a prototype QB for this era. And more than anything he carries that chip on his shoulder from being slighted that makes him work as hard as anyone. Maybe he loses some of that if he goes #1 overall to SF, but I think still the fact that no major colleges wanted him and that he'd have to go the JUCO route stays with him and fuels him. I think in retrospect he'd have been good anywhere, but he's more refined because he a ) went to GB and b ) had the time on the bench to observe Favre, the west coast offense and learn. Hell, maybe he goes elsewhere and becomes Jay Cutler. There's a fun alternate universe playing out somewhere.

As for Alex Smith, he's as big time "What If" in my mind. As good as Harbaugh made him this last year and a half I think most of us can admit he doesn't have that palapable "it" quality the best QBs have. But depending on the day, I can go either way down the: "all the hits he took and the disaster of an offense he played on in his formative years sent him halfway down the David Carr path" road or "there's fundamental QBing attributes he was never gonna possess." Sure he's smart, but so is Ryan Fizpatrick, doesn't mean you have those intangible qualities necessary to be one of the really good QBs that seem to populate the sport these days.

His 2 separations in his throwing shoulder and the further damage caused by playing with it for weeks because Nolan stupidly decided he was faking it REALLY affected his arm strength and release. Before that he had a very strong arm and, at draft time, was considered to have a quicker release than Rodgers. And more athletic.

So, while Rodgers sat, learned, worked with gurus on his technique and mechanics and became immessed in his system, Smith was thrown in behind a sieve offensive line, lead the league in sacks year after year, with a different coordinator every year, no wide receivers, and until Vernon Davis, no receivers at all. Add the injuries to that and I think you are seriously underestimating how much he's lot along the way, from a physical standpoint.

Edited by James Arryn, 21 January 2013 - 09:22 PM.

[Triskele]

James Arryn, on 21 January 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

His 2 separations in his throwing shoulder and the further damage caused by playing with it for weeks because Nolan stupidly decided he was faking it REALLY affected his arm strength and release. Before that he had a very strong arm and, at draft time, was considered to have a quicker release than Rodgers. And more athletic.

If this is so, I suspect that the injuries were the bigger deal rather than the being thrown to the wolves thing.

That is to say that I don't think the reason Rodgers is good is because he got to sit for a few years.  Nothing teaches like real game experience.