Phil Emery Is God - The 2014 Bears

[Quality Start Machine]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

Or,

3. McCown was fortunate to play against the worst defenses in the NFL in the games he started.

Including the Vikings who kicked his ugly white ass all over the carpet.

No way in fucking hell McCown has the Bears within 14 points of the Browns.

[CT III]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

So if your argument is that the offense makes the man, why are you advocating "tanking" an entire season to get the first pick in the draft and take a franchise QB?

[Slaky]

Usually meatballs are good and illogical, and I am happy in my avoidance of sports radio, but other than Career Backup McCown, did anyone offer up any options other than Cutler?

I was a fan of the tank on purpose for Jameis Winston strategy.  Why have an aging Cutler for 3+ years when you can have Cam Newton on steroids for 10?

But three more years of an aging top-15 QB who is inconsistent, throws way too many god-awful picks, can't beat the Packers, is consistently enigmatic in games (look at his career 2nd and 3rd quarter QB rating relative to 1st and 4th), locks into B-Marsh way too frequently and misses other open throws, and has no track record of meaningful success (and a record of crapping the bed in big games, actually) is an unabashedly good thing, when it's entirely possible right now with a porous defense to go the "suck for Luck" route?  (You have to feel for the Colts, going from franchise QB to.... .... ... franchise QB.)

I know we've been starved for good QB play for a long time, but seriously, fans of this are just a bunch of rabidly hungry dogs who will defend their ribeye from Outback like its a porterhouse from Peter Lugar's.  Eating scraps from the dumpster for a year would've been worth it to get Winston.

You're trolling us on purpose, right?  Is that what this is?

If Cutler was so bad, how come the Bears won 8 games? It seems they had what they needed to "Commit Hari Kari for Jabari" or whatever the fuck. But he accidentally won 5 games.

Drink Piss for Jameis

[Slaky]

Pretty excited to watch Jameis Winston's career be a complete elephant dump.

[Tony]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

So if your argument is that the offense makes the man, why are you advocating "tanking" an entire season to get the first pick in the draft and take a franchise QB?

And if McCown is able to run that offense successfully, how the hell would the tanking even happen?

[Slaky]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

So if your argument is that the offense makes the man, why are you advocating "tanking" an entire season to get the first pick in the draft and take a franchise QB?

And if McCown is able to run that offense successfully, how the hell would the tanking even happen?

Answer that one idiot.

[Saul Goodman]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

So if your argument is that the offense makes the man, why are you advocating "tanking" an entire season to get the first pick in the draft and take a franchise QB?

And if McCown is able to run that offense successfully, how the hell would the tanking even happen?

By playing Cutler, because he sucks and is terrible and I hate him.

[Quality Start Machine]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

So if your argument is that the offense makes the man, why are you advocating "tanking" an entire season to get the first pick in the draft and take a franchise QB?

And if McCown is able to run that offense successfully, how the hell would the tanking even happen?

One phone call.

[Yeti]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

So if your argument is that the offense makes the man, why are you advocating "tanking" an entire season to get the first pick in the draft and take a franchise QB?

And if McCown is able to run that offense successfully, how the hell would the tanking even happen?

One phone call.

He'll easily be available January 7th

[motown]

Drafting poorly to avoid the need to pay value to good players is the NFL's new market inefficiency.

http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikings/post/_/id/3983/vikings-cutler-contract-a-cautionary-tale

[Slaky]

Drafting poorly to avoid the need to pay value to good players is the NFL's new market inefficiency.

http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikings/post/_/id/3983/vikings-cutler-contract-a-cautionary-tale

Yeah, good stuff Vikings blogger. Whatever makes you feel better.

[PenFoe]

Drafting poorly to avoid the need to pay value to good players is the NFL's new market inefficiency.

http://espn.go.com/blog/minnesota-vikings/post/_/id/3983/vikings-cutler-contract-a-cautionary-tale

Shut up Paul, you're a douche.

[CubFaninHydePark]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

So if your argument is that the offense makes the man, why are you advocating "tanking" an entire season to get the first pick in the draft and take a franchise QB?

Because an excellent QB should be able to put up even better numbers in a good offense?  Can you imagine Rodgers for a full season in this offense?  He could've raced Manning this season if he were wearing a Bears jersey.  Instead we pay a guy Rodgers money to play significantly worse than him when he's not injured.

The burden is on Cutler defenders here.  Why has he only thrown 18 more TDs than INTs over HIS ENTIRE CAREER?  Why does he continue to throw the same fucking lazy INTs off his back foot, sailing balls over open receivers or causing his receivers to only be able to tip them to defenders?  Oh, and the injury prone-ness and horrific record against winning teams (something like 10-28 since 2009).

Cutler is every bit the fraud that Romo is, getting paid the same money as guys who actually earn it season in and season out.

As long as the Packers have a relatively young Rodgers, every team in the NFC North is locked in an arms race that they can't win on offense.  There are two strategies that I think are viable: 1. build a defense that, when coupled with an offense that may not be prolific, but can possess the ball and be responsible with it, can let you win a close, low-scoring game, or 2. concede the arms race in the short-term, devote your resources towards youth and finding a franchise QB in the draft that will be ready to exert Rodgers-like dominance of the division right at the time that Rodgers is getting old.

The Bears obviously decided to move away from strategy #1, in fairness, because it was probably still suboptimal and proved to be as the 1-8 mark against them of late has proved.  But trying to outscore the Packers with a healthy Rodgers is also likely to fail.

The real plan this GM should be judged on is what he does to build the team for the post-Rodgers NFC North.

[Saul Goodman]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

So if your argument is that the offense makes the man, why are you advocating "tanking" an entire season to get the first pick in the draft and take a franchise QB?

Because an excellent QB should be able to put up even better numbers in a good offense?  Can you imagine Rodgers for a full season in this offense?  He could've raced Manning this season if he were wearing a Bears jersey.  Instead we pay a guy Rodgers money to play significantly worse than him when he's not injured.

The burden is on Cutler defenders here.  Why has he only thrown 18 more TDs than INTs over HIS ENTIRE CAREER?  Why does he continue to throw the same fucking lazy INTs off his back foot, sailing balls over open receivers or causing his receivers to only be able to tip them to defenders?  Oh, and the injury prone-ness and horrific record against winning teams (something like 10-28 since 2009).

Cutler is every bit the fraud that Romo is, getting paid the same money as guys who actually earn it season in and season out.

As long as the Packers have a relatively young Rodgers, every team in the NFC North is locked in an arms race that they can't win on offense.  There are two strategies that I think are viable: 1. build a defense that, when coupled with an offense that may not be prolific, but can possess the ball and be responsible with it, can let you win a close, low-scoring game, or 2. concede the arms race in the short-term, devote your resources towards youth and finding a franchise QB in the draft that will be ready to exert Rodgers-like dominance of the division right at the time that Rodgers is getting old.

The Bears obviously decided to move away from strategy #1, in fairness, because it was probably still suboptimal and proved to be as the 1-8 mark against them of late has proved.  But trying to outscore the Packers with a healthy Rodgers is also likely to fail.

The real plan this GM should be judged on is what he does to build the team for the post-Rodgers NFC North.

DOOOOOOOOOOOON'T

CAAAAAAAAAAAAAARE

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

So if you have the #2 offense in the NFL, with only 2 starters over the age of 30, and a shitpile of a defense, the surest way to build a contender is to tear apart said offense and intentionally lose games so you can get a quarterback who may eventually be better than the one you have right now, who just lead the NFL's #2 ranked scoring offense.

Barring that, just draft the greatest quarterback of all time and five pro bowl linemen.

Doesn't the fact that they were able to sustain the pace with a career backup say two things?

1. That it's the offense, not the QB?

And/or

2. That a QB as valuable as Cutler supposedly is should be putting up noticeably better #'s under that system than the career backup, not equivalent numbers with more INTs?

So if your argument is that the offense makes the man, why are you advocating "tanking" an entire season to get the first pick in the draft and take a franchise QB?

Because an excellent QB should be able to put up even better numbers in a good offense?  Can you imagine Rodgers for a full season in this offense?  He could've raced Manning this season if he were wearing a Bears jersey.  Instead we pay a guy Rodgers money to play significantly worse than him when he's not injured.

The burden is on Cutler defenders here.  Why has he only thrown 18 more TDs than INTs over HIS ENTIRE CAREER?  Why does he continue to throw the same fucking lazy INTs off his back foot, sailing balls over open receivers or causing his receivers to only be able to tip them to defenders?  Oh, and the injury prone-ness and horrific record against winning teams (something like 10-28 since 2009).

Cutler is every bit the fraud that Romo is, getting paid the same money as guys who actually earn it season in and season out.

As long as the Packers have a relatively young Rodgers, every team in the NFC North is locked in an arms race that they can't win on offense.  There are two strategies that I think are viable: 1. build a defense that, when coupled with an offense that may not be prolific, but can possess the ball and be responsible with it, can let you win a close, low-scoring game, or 2. concede the arms race in the short-term, devote your resources towards youth and finding a franchise QB in the draft that will be ready to exert Rodgers-like dominance of the division right at the time that Rodgers is getting old.

The Bears obviously decided to move away from strategy #1, in fairness, because it was probably still suboptimal and proved to be as the 1-8 mark against them of late has proved.  But trying to outscore the Packers with a healthy Rodgers is also likely to fail.

The real plan this GM should be judged on is what he does to build the team for the post-Rodgers NFC North.

DOOOOOOOOOOOON'T

CAAAAAAAAAAAAAARE

Seriously.  Just stop rooting for the navy blue and orange laundry if you're going to be so put off by Cutler.

Idiot.