Systems of Football: The All-Purpose Bears Game Thread

[Quality Start Machine]

Sure, the offense could have done more but how much can you ask out of them? The defense was surprisingly playing well albeit some bad calls. It really didn't matter in the end. Chris Conte and the shitty defense of the Chicago Bears lost this game. No doubt about it.

[Gilgamesh]

Sure, the offense could have done more but how much can you ask out of them? The defense was surprisingly playing well albeit some bad calls. It really didn't matter in the end. Chris Conte and the shitty defense of the Chicago Bears lost this game. No doubt about it.

I'm not disputing your point, Fork, but it was great to see that the NFL's idea of a 40 second play clock evolved into a 40-ish second play clock.

That was convenient for the Packers.

[CBStew]

Just a pre-emptive "Shut up" to CFiHP whenever he stumbles in here.

The defense obviously was the real villain here, but Jay had multiple chances to man up and put it away, and he failed to do it.  On the other side of the field, he got to watch a HOF QB come up clutch and kill the Bears once again.  Does anyone think that if Cutler were in Rodgers shoes on that 4th and 8, that he would've 1. avoided the sack, and 2. thrown that good of a ball to Cobb?  It would've either sailed 10 yards on him or fallen 5 yards short.

Would Jay get to play against Mel Tucker's defensive unit?

But I have to say FUCK JAY CUTLER.

1) He could of picked up that loose ball and ran it back for a touchdown instead of Boykins.
2) He could of covered better when he wore number 47.
3) He could of sacked Rodgers on 4th and 8 when he wore number 90
4) He could of called a much less aggressive play on 4th and 8 that would of won the game for the Bears
5) He should of called delay of game on the Packers on 4th and 1
6) He could of made that field goal on 3rd down at the HHH Dome four weeks ago.
7) He could of made the plays late in the game against Washington instead of letting them score.
8) He could of coaxed Urlacher into coming back for one more year even though Urlacher was finished.
9) He could of told Rose to show some balls and come back for the playoffs.
10) He should of walked to the mound after Prior was rattled with a 2-2 count on Castillo and Mordecai on 2nd base. After all they were up 3-0 and that foul ball was not the end-all be-all.
10) He should of told Dusty that he'd be able to come in out of the pen in Games 6 and 7.
11) He should of told Gary Woods to lay off the fucking Gatorade because he's going to spill some on Leon Durham's glove!
12) He should of not grooved that fastball to Willie Stargell
13) He should of called tails in 1969 so the Bears could draft Bradshaw.
14) He shouldn't of agreed to cede Sudetenland to Germany and then fly back to England promising "Peace in Our Time."
15) He shouldn't of told President Lincoln to go watch My American Cousin.

Cutler should go play for Minnesota and stick it up our collective asses for another 5 or 6 years. We deserve the next crop of Will Fuhrers, Steve Stenstroms, Mark Butterfields, and Craig Krenzel. Fuck us.

2 stars

[Gilgamesh]

I see that the Tribune's poll about wanting Cutler back is exactly 50/50 after almost 18,000 votes. That sounds about right.

Cutler can be frustrating and I don't think he's as good as SKO has built him up to be in his prickly, strawmen-busting brain (love you anyway, Kyle), but I don't see another reasonable option besides bringing him back unless you don't care about next season. Because what's even more frustrating than Cutler is a genuinely bad QB, which is probably what they'll have next year if Cutler is elsewhere.

I guess I'd lean toward franchising him, drafting a QB fairly early and seeing how it plays out with that development. An extension wouldn't bother me either, I suppose.

If you draft a QB fairly early and franchise Cutler, when will the draftee play?  My thinking is that if you are going to expend that first round pick on a QB (or any other player) that player should be on the field immediately.

If you let Cutler go, that's when you draft a QB early; otherwise, it'll be a wasted season for that player.

Alternatively, you could franchise Cutler and then draft a QB in the second or third rounds (or even the fourth) and then let him develop.

[Slaky]

This is a good read if you want to revisit that awful feeling in the pit of your stomach on that 4th and 8 play.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10214346/bill-barnwell-week-17-nfl

no thanks.

I'm already in Emery mode. Looking forward to seeing what he does.

also, go Broncos.

[flannj]

I see that the Tribune's poll about wanting Cutler back is exactly 50/50 after almost 18,000 votes. That sounds about right.

Cutler can be frustrating and I don't think he's as good as SKO has built him up to be in his prickly, strawmen-busting brain (love you anyway, Kyle), but I don't see another reasonable option besides bringing him back unless you don't care about next season. Because what's even more frustrating than Cutler is a genuinely bad QB, which is probably what they'll have next year if Cutler is elsewhere.

I guess I'd lean toward franchising him, drafting a QB fairly early and seeing how it plays out with that development. An extension wouldn't bother me either, I suppose.

If you draft a QB fairly early and franchise Cutler, when will the draftee play?  My thinking is that if you are going to expend that first round pick on a QB (or any other player) that player should be on the field immediately.

If you let Cutler go, that's when you draft a QB early; otherwise, it'll be a wasted season for that player.

Alternatively, you could franchise Cutler and then draft a QB in the second or third rounds (or even the fourth) and then let him develop.

He was selected in the first round (24th overall) of the 2005 NFL Draft by the Packers.[4]
After backing up Brett Favre for the first three years of his NFL career, XXXXX became the Green Bay Packers' starting quarterback in 2008 and led them to a win in Super Bowl XLV after the 2010 NFL season;

Who is Aaron Rodgers?

[InternetApex]

You have the receivers, the tight end, the running back and offensive line you need to be a top offense NOW. NOW NOW NOW NOW

Who knows what will happen over the course of one half season? Let alone the two it might take a young QB to develop in your offense.

Re-sign Cutler for 2 or 3 years and try to win with what you have NOW.

This is the 13th Amendment, motherfuckers.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I see that the Tribune's poll about wanting Cutler back is exactly 50/50 after almost 18,000 votes. That sounds about right.

Cutler can be frustrating and I don't think he's as good as SKO has built him up to be in his prickly, strawmen-busting brain (love you anyway, Kyle), but I don't see another reasonable option besides bringing him back unless you don't care about next season. Because what's even more frustrating than Cutler is a genuinely bad QB, which is probably what they'll have next year if Cutler is elsewhere.

I guess I'd lean toward franchising him, drafting a QB fairly early and seeing how it plays out with that development. An extension wouldn't bother me either, I suppose.

If you draft a QB fairly early and franchise Cutler, when will the draftee play?  My thinking is that if you are going to expend that first round pick on a QB (or any other player) that player should be on the field immediately.

If you let Cutler go, that's when you draft a QB early; otherwise, it'll be a wasted season for that player.

Alternatively, you could franchise Cutler and then draft a QB in the second or third rounds (or even the fourth) and then let him develop.

He was selected in the first round (24th overall) of the 2005 NFL Draft by the Packers.[4]
After backing up Brett Favre for the first three years of his NFL career, XXXXX became the Green Bay Packers' starting quarterback in 2008 and led them to a win in Super Bowl XLV after the 2010 NFL season;

Who is Aaron Rodgers?

I think he owns the Cubs.

[SKO]

I see that the Tribune's poll about wanting Cutler back is exactly 50/50 after almost 18,000 votes. That sounds about right.

Cutler can be frustrating and I don't think he's as good as SKO has built him up to be in his prickly, strawmen-busting brain (love you anyway, Kyle), but I don't see another reasonable option besides bringing him back unless you don't care about next season. Because what's even more frustrating than Cutler is a genuinely bad QB, which is probably what they'll have next year if Cutler is elsewhere.

I guess I'd lean toward franchising him, drafting a QB fairly early and seeing how it plays out with that development. An extension wouldn't bother me either, I suppose.

I don't want a Cutler extension if it comes at 20 million a year or whatever the hell it is Flacco/Romo got, but I don't see why it has to be that way. "THEY ARE SIMILAR-ISH QBS" does not a contract make. The Bears have leverage. Romo had the Cowboys over a barrel because they needed to extend him just to get under the cap. The Ravens didn't have the money to franchise Flacco, plus he had a Superbowl win to point to.

The Bears have two years of a tag, an injury history that's not entirely insignificant at this point, plus the McCown Bluff that I don't think Emery would actually pull as leverage against Jay. I'd expect he'll get extended at somewhere in the 13-15 million a year range.

[Gilgamesh]

You have the receivers, the tight end, the running back and offensive line you need to be a top offense NOW. NOW NOW NOW NOW

Who knows what will happen over the course of one half season? Let alone the two it might take a young QB to develop in your offense.

Re-sign Cutler for 2 or 3 years and try to win with what you have NOW.

This is the 13th Amendment, motherfuckers.

I agree with pretty much all of this.

[Eli]

Alternatively, you could franchise Cutler and then draft a QB in the second or third rounds (or even the fourth) and then let him develop.

That's more what I was thinking. The defense has too many major needs to draft a backup QB at 14. Maybe if Carr/Bortles/Manziel (yuck) falls and Emery is certain one of them is going to be a star, but that seems pretty unlikely.

[InternetApex]

Alternatively, you could franchise Cutler and then draft a QB in the second or third rounds (or even the fourth) and then let him develop.

That's more what I was thinking. The defense has too many major needs to draft a backup QB at 14. Maybe if Carr/Bortles/Manziel (yuck) falls and Emery is certain one of them is going to be a star, but that seems pretty unlikely.

I think 14 needs to be spent on a defensive lineman. Someone start making a list of good ones who can be available then and fax them to me.

[Slaky]

You have the receivers, the tight end, the running back and offensive line you need to be a top offense NOW. NOW NOW NOW NOW

Who knows what will happen over the course of one half season? Let alone the two it might take a young QB to develop in your offense.

Re-sign Cutler for 2 or 3 years and try to win with what you have NOW.

This is the 13th Amendment, motherfuckers.

Yes, all of this. Augment the D - maybe get another OL. What else do you need? This offense rules.

[InternetApex]

You have the receivers, the tight end, the running back and offensive line you need to be a top offense NOW. NOW NOW NOW NOW

Who knows what will happen over the course of one half season? Let alone the two it might take a young QB to develop in your offense.

Re-sign Cutler for 2 or 3 years and try to win with what you have NOW.

This is the 13th Amendment, motherfuckers.

Yes, all of this. Augment the D - maybe get another OL. What else do you need? This offense rules.

Another TE wouldn't hurt. A burner at WR is another useful piece they don't have. I wouldn't be mad if they traded 14 down for more picks and did the same as often as they could with the rest of their picks. With so few players under contract for next year, you'd want several on their rookie deals just to fill out your roster.

[Quality Start Machine]

Sure, the offense could have done more but how much can you ask out of them? The defense was surprisingly playing well albeit some bad calls. It really didn't matter in the end. Chris Conte and the shitty defense of the Chicago Bears lost this game. No doubt about it.

I'm not disputing your point, Fork, but it was great to see that the NFL's idea of a 40 second play clock evolved into a 40-ish second play clock.

That was convenient for the Packers.

Damn, I thought the defense going from surprisingly playing well to being shitty in two sentences was all it took to make you recognize a Froll.