I admit the dude has talent but he is no where near as good as he thinks he is. He has looked awful against the Ravens.

Yeah he is definitely not as good as he thinks he is. How bad did the Broncos screw the Bears?

^Ha pretty bad.

He's not a winner and never has been. It was obvious the Bears were absolutely fleeced when the trade was made (the guy has never been anything more than average and they give up 2 1sts, a 3rd, and a serviceable starting QB for him?) and it's just become more and more obvious as the season goes on.

Not only were they fleeced, but it would now appear that team has quit on their coach.

Yeah he's been pretty damn turble, and it's looking more and more like it's going to end up costing Lovie Smith his job.

As soon as I realized my opponent in fantasy football had the Ravens defense, and I saw that they were playing the Bears, I just cringed. I predicted 5 INTs, so Cutler did better than I thought. What a piece of crap this guy is, he has a sense of entitlement while accomplishing nothing.

The Bears are in big trouble. They couldn't afford to have this trade be a bust. The Bears are going to need to clean house.

I think this clip from 2 years ago still applies pretty well.

The Bears seriously need a WR. Hester isn't even close to being a #1.

In his defense, he doesn't have anyone to throw the ball to. But, I don't feel sorry for him one bit. I hated how he handled the situation in Denver and don't care if he fails now that he proved himself a baby.

Cutler is a hell of a lot better QB than most people would give him credit for.

Think about this.
-- Rex Grossman was a very good prospect who became a part-time good player
-- Kyle Orton was an average quarterback who looked like Superman upon going to Denver
-- Jay Cutler was an All-Pro caliber quarterback who became an average player upon arriving in Chicago

The common thread through all of this is having Ron Turner as the OC in Chicago. When he goes, Cutler goes back to becoming an All-Pro, you all rave about what a great player he's become, and I feel vindicated for knowing it and recognizing it all along.

Cutler wasn't great in Denver. He's never been a top 10 QB and never been close to worthy of what Chicago traded for him.

He threw for a lot of YARDS in Denver because they threw almost every play (especially last year when they were down to like the 4th string running back), but that's about it.

9 TD 5 INT 88.5 rating
20 TD 14 INT 88.1
25 TD 18 INT 86.0

Now 19 TD 22 INT 75.2

He's always a turnover machine. Was he solid before this year? Sure. Somewhere from the #12-18 QB in the league probably. But, based on this year in Chicago, the meltdown last season with Denver and subsequent whining, etc., he's also not a very good leader and a complete pansy.

If anything people gave him too much credit before this year. Some people even tried to argue that it was a good trade for Chicago when it happened.

Who the hell uses QB rating as a determining factor in anything? Well, except "who can regurgitate an idiotic formula that has no meaning or correlation to anything".

Well, to be fair, usually "All Pro" QB's have great QB ratings..

Cutler does not.

Didn't Chicago sign him to an extension as well?

^ The NFL? Is that a good enough example of who uses it?

How about TD/INT ratio? Is that a legit stat? Or career record (22-29)?

What stats do you consider legitimate?

Mulva wrote: ^ The NFL? Is that a good enough example of who uses it?

No.

How about TD/INT ratio? Is that a legit stat?

No.

Or career record (22-29)?

No.

What stats do you consider legitimate?

The formula needs tweaking, but it's certainly a start.

http://armchairgm.wikia.com/index.php?title=Article:QB/Passer_rating:_Yes,_there_is_a_better_way

And to see correlation to winning...

http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:Tom_Brady:_Luckiest_postseason_QB_ever%3F

Basically any stat that refutes what NNN is saying is meaningless...

LTrain23 wrote: Basically any stat that refutes what NNN is saying is meaningless...

No, but then again, I'm more curious to see what exactly the common theme of successful versus unsuccessful teams look like.

The one commonly bandied about is that "a QB who leads the league in passing hasn't won the Super Bowl since whatever year". Basically it's used by a bunch of anti-intellectual pseudo-jocks to "prove" some point about how stats are meaningless and that games are won and lost by blind rage, spit, and whether or not the ghost of Bronko Nagurski and Norris Weese is by your side.

Of course, it overlooks something that's very basic. "Leading the league in passing" refers to passing yards. And the reason that there's a low correlation between winning and high numbers of passing yards is based on this:
1) Most good teams have a good balance of passing to running, and
2) Most bad teams will get behind early and force the QB to pass the ball all over the place, thus racking up high passing numbers but very little on the scoreboard

With this in mind, I started doing work with YDS:TD ratio, which tends to offer a much clearer insight as to exactly how valuable a QB may be. Those with extremely high ratios (150 yards per TD) tend to play for poor teams, those with extremely low ratios (100 yards or less per TD) tend to play for good teams, and those with extremely weird ratios (above 200 and under 90) tend to be in a unique situations, such as a QB leading an unbalanced offense with a road grader who runs from the 5-yard-line in.

QB ratio is useless because, among other things, it takes completion percentage into account. There is ZERO correlation between completion percentage and any of a number of things...efficiency of an offense, wins and losses, amount of offense generated, and so on. It also heavily skews toward post-Walsh QBs, who were taught to quickly check down to a running back, thus creating an entire generation where the most inept QBs in history have QB ratings that dwarf first-ballot HOFers.

Cutler is a great guy off the field...does A LOT of charity work. However, with all the picks he throws, I think he's a little too charitable on the field. Oh well, what do you expect from a guy from a town called Santa Claus?

First time I've heard that a QB rating is useless.

Here are some stats relating to wins:

Breese - QB rating- 109
Favre - 104
Rivers - 103
Rodgers - 102
Manning - 101
Roethlisburger - 101
Schaub - 99
Romo Brady - 94
McNabb - 94
Manning - 93

What's the common theme with those QB's? They are winners. When you are trying to defend Cutler, you can't ignore his rating of 71, which is in par with guys like Brady Quinn and Chad Henne.

Even without the QB Rating, Cutler isnt "all-pro". Look at all his numbers in Denver. Sure, better than this year, but not great or all-pro status at all.