Let's Evaluate Cutler Right NOW. Game Day Re-Play Thread

[Oldfan]

Here are some additional facts for the fire from Pro Football Reference:

IMO the major flaw in any statistical analysis is that there are no true individual stats in football since it's a team sport. The basis of the analysis is as follows.

First I calculated each QB’s adjusted net yards per attempt (passing yards + 20*TDs - 45*INT - sack yards lost) / (passes + sacks) metric.

Drew Brees's YPA incorporates the value of Sean Payton's scheme, Payton's play-calling, the quality of his O line and the quality of his receivers.

What we want to be able to do is to put a value on Drew Brees and Jay Cutler. Instead, what we are getting is an approach that puts a value on the Saints offense and the Denver offense.

[texasthunder]

What he counts against the cap and what his contract is can be confusing.

If we trade Campbell to get Cutler, then the remaining portion of his signing bonus will be dead money against the cap. I would count that as to what Cutler's cap hit would actually be.

But wait, why are we even talking Cutler when he plays for the Broncos and will not be in Washington this season???[/quote]

I have seen you make this statement in alot of your posts.

And I have to ask, do you keep repeating it because you want to make others believe its not going to happen?

Do you keep saying it so that you convince yourself its not going to happen?

Or do you just keep repeating it so that IF it doesnt happen, then you can say "I told you it wouldnt happen".

But in any case, its the offseason and we are all talking football. Thats it man, just plain talking football.

[Oldfan]

I referred to awesome QBs in this case as Hall of Fame QBs... a typical uniformed fan may not know what QBs are in the Hall of Fame...

The HOF, which is supposed to be about individual accomplishment, has been criticized for being weighted too much in favor of team success.

As for Terry Bradshaw.., leading his team to 4 SB titles says a lot, and if you want to call him average... that's your own business.

That's right. I can't prove "barely above average" and you can't prove your claims of "awesome." So, you added nothing to this debate with your earlier claim.

As for defenses winning Super Bowls... Pittsburgh's couldn't handle Larry Fitzgerald and Arizona... and ironically enough... it was Pittsburgh's QB: Ben Rothleisberger who was clutch and led them to the title... A QB... imagine that.

What exactly have you proved with this observation? Did someone say that QB's aren't important? Did someone say that QBs don't sometimes make plays to win games? Did someone say that "defenses win championships?"

[cphil006]

[

I have seen you make this statement in alot of your posts.

And I have to ask, do you keep repeating it because you want to make others believe its not going to happen?

Do you keep saying it so that you convince yourself its not going to happen?

Or do you just keep repeating it so that IF it doesnt happen, then you can say "I told you it wouldnt happen".

But in any case, its the offseason and we are all talking football. Thats it man, just plain talking football.

Do people keep making threads and talking about it because they want it to happen... or do you really think it's going to happen?

There are several threads floating around with the pipe dream of trading Campbell for Cutler... Can we merge into one.

It's just offseason... and I'm just speaking football and playing deveil's advocate. That's it... someone's got to...

[cphil006]

The HOF, which is supposed to be about individual accomplishment, has been criticized for being weighted too much in favor of team success.

Sometimes an individual's accompliishments are measured by his team's success. Most players play to win the game. Not to pass their way into record books. When they play their best in the most critical times...

That's right. I can't prove "barely above average" and you can't prove your claims of "awesome." So, you added nothing to this debate with your earlier claim.

I can prove my claims of awesome... the QBs I referred to as that were the QBs that had the five worst defenses that won a Super Bowl:

Peyton Manning

John Elway

Joe Namath

Jim Plunkett(twice)

If any of those are " barely above average" in your eyes, you're right about not being able to prove it. I can prove my claim about each one of those being "awesome" or "great"

What exactly have you proved with this observation? Did someone say that QB's aren't important? Did someone say that QBs don't sometimes make plays to win games? Did someone say that "defenses win championships?"

If you recall... YOU said:

There has never been a QB win a ring without a good defense in the history of the game. There were some that lacked a great defense.

and I proved otherwise rememeber?

Here's the five worst defensive teams that have won a SB... with the before-mentioned QBs that were "awesome"

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=1345

.

.

.

[Oldfan]

cphil006, listing the five worst defenses in super bowl history does not disprove my statement that:

There has never been a QB win a ring without a good defense in the history of the game. There were some that lacked a great defense.

If you have a list of the defenses of superbowl winners, it's obvious that five have to be the worst on the list, but that doesn't prove that those same defenses weren't good compared to the rest of the league.

Furthermore, as I said before, if you are going to grade defenses, using the points scored against them is a simplistic, illogical way to do it. Jim Plunkett's Raiders are a good example of the problem. Plunkett was a statue, but he was an excellent deep thrower on a team with exceptional deep threat receivers. They scored quickly, but their bombs-away style of offense didn't move the chains, control the clock and help the defense hold the score down. Their offensive style won games and made their defense look worse than it really was.

I can prove my claim about each one of those being "awesome" or "great"

Try it.

[cphil006]

cphil006, listing the five worst defenses in super bowl history does not disprove my statement that:

There has never been a QB win a ring without a good defense in the history of the game. There were some that lacked a great defense.

If you have a list of the defenses of superbowl winners, it's obvious that five have to be the worst on the list, but that doesn't prove that those same defenses weren't good compared to the rest of the league.

Furthermore, as I said before, if you are going to grade defenses, using the points scored against them is a simplistic, illogical way to do it. Jim Plunkett's Raiders are a good example of the problem. Plunkett was a statue, but he was an excellent deep thrower on a team with exceptional deep threat receivers. They scored quickly, but their bombs-away style of offense didn't move the chains, control the clock and help the defense hold the score down. Their offensive style won games and made their defense look worse than it really was.

I'm not the only one who thought they had a bad defense, this is from the article I provided about the teams with bad defenses that won Super Bowls because they had great QBs:

"In fact, it wasn't even close: The 2006 Colts surrendered nearly 1.5 PPG more than the next worst team on the list, the 1983 Raiders. Those Raiders of the early 1980s twice won Super Bowls with poor defensive clubs, while the Jets' victory in Super Bowl III always looks more impressive the more you break it down. "

Try it.

This is too easy.

You want me to prove that the four QBs I referred to as great QBs: Peyton Manning, John Elway, Joe Namath, and Jim Plunkett?... of those four, two are in the Hall, one is going to the Hall, and some argue Plunkett should be, even though his best moments were in the Super Bowl and only Joe Montana has done better in the big game.

Is being in the Hall of Fame not an attribute of a great player? I guess it's not to you.

Either way you spin it, 22 points a game is a bad defense. You can make all the excuses in the world about how the offense was so good it scored to quickly allowing the other team to score... yada yada... come on...

Try it.

[cphil006]

cphil006, listing the five worst defenses in super bowl history does not disprove my statement that:

There has never been a QB win a ring without a good defense in the history of the game. There were some that lacked a great defense.

.

The five worst out of 40 + winners... there are bound to be some bad ones...

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=1345

Really?? 22 points a game is a good defense? I'm providing facts... something you've lacked.

[Oldfan]

I'm not the only one who thought they had a bad defense, this is from the article I provided about the teams with bad defenses that won Super Bowls because they had great QBs...

I don't doubt there are many who would agree with you, but you and whoever wrote that article don't know what you're talking about. Others who understand the logical basis of football statistics would agree with me.

You want me to prove that the four QBs I referred to as great QBs: Peyton Manning, John Elway, Joe Namath, and Jim Plunkett?... of those four, two are in the Hall, one is going to the Hall, and some argue Plunkett should be, even though his best moments were in the Super Bowl and only Joe Montana has done better in the big game.

Peyton is overrated, but he's probably Hall worthy. Elway and Namath are deserving of the HOF. Plunkett...no freakin' way.

Is being in the Hall of Fame not an attribute of a great player? I guess it's not to you.

No, it's not supposed to be an attribute. It's an honor that some deserve and some don't.

IMO, Bart Starr, Montana and Bradshaw were carried to the Hall by their support systems.

You proved nothing about QBs except that, if their teams win shampionships, typical fans will consider them "awesome" by default.

[Mickalino]

can we evaluate that haircut?

That's why they wear helmets, BigMike

[Oldfan]

The five worst out of 40 + winners... there are bound to be some bad ones...

Not true. In order to prove this, you need to first find a logical way to use stats to measure the quality of defenses, then you need to compare the defenses of super bowl winners with the league as a whole.

Get back to me when you have something that makes sense.

[BigMike619]

That's why they wear helmets, BigMike

when they pull up his stats or introduce him on MNF he isnt wearing it!!

can we make it a rule if he comes here that he either shaves his head or wears his helmet at all times?

[mcarey032]

I don't doubt there are many who would agree with you, but you and whoever wrote that article don't know what you're talking about. Others who understand the logical basis of football statistics would agree with me.

Peyton is overrated, but he's probably Hall worthy. Elway and Namath are deserving of the HOF. Plunkett...no freakin' way.

No, it's not supposed to be an attribute. It's an honor that some deserve and some don't.

IMO, Bart Starr, Montana and Bradshaw were carried to the Hall by their support systems.

You proved nothing about QBs except that, if their teams win shampionships, typical fans will consider them "awesome" by default.

I don't agree with you about Joe Montana at all. Who did he have to throw to before Jerry Rice got there and they won their two Super Bowls? I don't think that it is fair for you to say that Joe Montana had "Support Systems". I am not saying that the people that Joe was throwing to were garbage, but they weren't HOF'ers either. Dwight Clark was a good player and so was Freddie Solomon, but they aren't Jerry Rice. That just happens to be a fact. Montana was a great QB before Rice and became even greater with him there. Joe Montana could have been a HOF player without Rice. Obviously it helped tremendously to both players, but there is no way to say that Montana's support group is what made him great. The guy was a winner from day once and he had multiple come from behind win games. He was a major factor in winning four Super Bowls, which only one other QB has accomplished thus far. He is probably the best QB I have ever personally seen play. He is the one constant in their Super Bowl dynasty

[Oldfan]

I don't agree with you about Joe Montana at all.

IMO, Walsh's system was the star of the Niners show. The scheme was sound, innovative and way ahead of the defenses of the day. Walsh also had a genius for finding players who fit his scheme perfectly. I don't think Joe Montana had the physical abilities to excel in anybody else's program at the time.

[texasthunder]

when they pull up his stats or introduce him on MNF he isnt wearing it!!

can we make it a rule if he comes here that he either shaves his head or wears his helmet at all times?[/quote]

Actually he is coming here!

One way or the other.

We either trade for him, or if he stays with the Broncos, we host them this year at Fed Ex.

[jtyler42]

Thanks for the high hanging curve ball. You do this because Cutler is a proven commodity. Drafting a 1st round QB is a crap shoot. (See Campbell, Jason). The reason Denver has been mediocre has obviously been their LACK OF DEFENSE. Our mediocrity has been from LACK OF OFFENSE. This is how Cutler makes us a winner sooner rather than later. Put on your thinking cap. We always make cap space. We almost always draft poorly. The sooner we realize that if we can get young, proven players, we need to do it...the better.

Proven? Proven how? What has he accomplished? So Cutler is going to make our D hold 4th quarter leads? Our mediocrity comes from inconsistency...When our O is on the D can't hold a lead and when our D is playing lights out our O can't get out of it's own way...Cutler isn't going to change that...

That's a nonsensical argument no matter which QB it's used against. Team stats aren't individual stats.

Here are the opinions of a few experts who disagree with you.

Boomer Esiason to the New York Post -- March 21, 2009

"I'm telling you, if I could get this kid, I would go guns a-blazing and try to get him," Esiason said.

"I don't know what it would take, but he's a kid that can play here for the next 10 years. This is not Brett Favre, a one-year Band-Aid. This is a totally different story.

"This is a kid who, if he does get traded - which I think is going to happen - you're getting him . . . smack dab in midst of his prime."

I doubt that Cutler's 2008 Pro Bowl season changed the minds of the experts quoted in December of 2007.

ESPN.com granted anonymity to two pro scouts, one personnel director, a defensive coordinator and a defensive backs coach in exchange for unvarnished evaluations.

"The kid in Denver, to me he is the future of this league," an AFC pro scout said.

"I would jump on that boat," an NFC personnel director said. "He isn't quite there, but you see those flashes of a guy who, once he has the whole playbook in his mind and he's made all the mistakes he needs to make in learning it, man, he's going to be a special player."

"I love him," the AFC scout said. "He's athletic, poised, smart, accurate -- and there was just something about that kid coming out, the way he was wired."

"He has an unbelievable career ahead of him," the NFC personnel director said. "He is Romo sits to pee [in terms of confidence] with the physical tools to match. He's fun to watch because he's kind of like the kid who plays quarterback down at the playground. 'Let's just go play.'

"He has a cannon of an arm, obviously, and when he's in the pocket, he has the arm strength to make all the throws," an NFC pro scout said. "Throw in the fact that he can move around and buy additional time, and he's got a pretty impressive arsenal in terms of ability and arm strength and feet."

Those are great quotes OldFan but they all talk about his potential, not his accomplishments...

So, your argument is that, no matter how bad his defense, special teams and running game was, Cutler's passing game should have been able to cover their ineptitude if he was a winning QB. Is that it?

Isn't that the argument that is used against Campbell? Look at some of the anti JC threads and that's what you keep seeing...For some reason people on here(extremeskins) have the idea that JC should be able to overcome the ineptitude of the rest of his team and be a winner, make all the plays, etc...

[mo808]

IMO, Walsh's system was the star of the Niners show. The scheme was sound, innovative and way ahead of the defenses of the day. Walsh also had a genius for finding players who fit his scheme perfectly. I don't think Joe Montana had the physical abilities to excel in anybody else's program at the time.

Loved those niners back then...they seemed invinsible! Montana has always been my hero! So, the system and the players was the reason it worked? I really wonder if the same kind magic could work for the Redskins! Hail! :point2sky

[Veretax]

Not to change the subject, but hypothetically speaking, looking back at the history of THIS franchise, who would you say of the Quarterbacks to play for Washington, that Jay Cutler is most like? Who does he remind you of? etc. ?

(Mods if you think this is better as a separate topic you can split it off, but I don't want to start another Cutler/Skins topic needlessly)

[cphil006]

Not true. In order to prove this, you need to first find a logical way to use stats to measure the quality of defenses, then you need to compare the defenses of super bowl winners with the league as a whole.

Get back to me when you have something that makes sense.

...and yet you've done nothing to prove your claims... I've at least shown proof and evidence. I've shown you article after article of other opinions and actual stats, but you refute them without backing yourself up. In fact you've never explained what does signify a good/bad defense. You sound like Sean Salisbury... "That's the way... because I said so!!!" :laugh:

I've backed up statements. You've yet to prove yours:

There has never been a QB win a ring without a good defense in the history of the game. There were some that lacked a great defense.

This has gotten really old.

Join the debate again when you can back-up your statement:

[cphil006]

Points allowed per game is a stat that measures the quality of the offense almost as much as it does the defense since a good offense keeps it defense off the field and doesn't give the opponent short-field advantages.

the 2006 Colts had a bad defense. 22+ points a game sucks. I think you're the guy who can't admit when he's made an incorrect statement

[Gunny Highway]

I really want Campbell to work out, but I'm starting to think that is not going to be the case. That said, if we do get Cutler in here, I want someone to sit down with the dude and show him film of Jeff George pouting on the sidelines and tell him, straight up front, "We won't play any of this crap"

[Big Mac Patty Wack]

I really want Campbell to work out, but I'm starting to think that is not going to be the case. That said, if we do get Cutler in here, I want someone to sit down with the dude and show him film of Jeff George pouting on the sidelines and tell him, straight up front, "We won't play any of this crap"

So I'm guessing he was sweet in this game?