Jump to content

Jay Cutler Is a FA After This Year


Recommended Posts

I want no part of Cutler. He showed me what he's made of after the Broncos drafted Tebow and he threw a hissy fit. I just don't think he has "it" . Leadership, toughness whatever you want to call it. He won't take a close team and put them over the top. No way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

#Gruden-Cutler2014

Yes a coach out of the league for such a long time with a head case- recipe for success

Heard this during the game tonight. The Bears will probably franchise him, but if he were available, I wonder if we would take a look. I don't think he would command elite money. A lot of people are o

I want no part of Cutler. He showed me what he's made of after the Broncos drafted Tebow and he threw a hissy fit. I just don't think he has "it" . Leadership, toughness whatever you want to call it. He won't take a close team and put them over the top. No way.

 

If Cutler was our QB in 2009 and 10 how do we do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's thirty four years old.

 

Aside from maybe Cutler, no one on that list is a quality starter.  There would be little to be gained from starting any of those guys over Geno.  Cutler is just as inconsistent as Geno, and isn't half as smart,and doesn't have the athleticism and ability to run that Geno has.  Cutler would cost a lot of money and in the end would kill the team with stupid picks as much or more than Geno would.  The thing with Geno is that he is smart and has shown the ability to learn from his mistakes.  Cutler's been in the league how many years, and has shown little or no ability to learn from his mistakes.

 

As far as I'm concerned, any vet FA the Jets would sign would be just to be a quality backup in case they aren't that high on Simms and to help mentor Geno and Simms.  If there was a quality vet on the list who could really push Geno and possibly supplant him as the starter, fine, but I just don't see one there.  Since they're a young team and on the rise, I'd rather they stick with Geno and Simms, then draft another QB somewhere in rounds 3-4.

 

If they are set on adding a vet, then McCown can still wing it in the cold and wind.  Anderson can wing it and has some mobility.  Either could enter a game and keep the chains moving or give you a few quality starts if need be.  Hill is more of a game manager imo and would be the least desirable of those 3.

Edited by JoeKlecko
Link to post
Share on other sites

Draft a QB in one of the rounds 3-5.  Keep drafting every year until you find the one.

 

I hear this philosophy all the time, but I don't see how it works.  QBs drafted in rounds 3-5 will take time to develop (how many ever do?) and if you keep drafting them, you have to cut one from the last couple of years.  Where does that leave you?  With a guy that might have some promise that you have to ditch because you can't carry 4 or 5 QBs.  You should always have a developmental QB that you like on the roster, but blindly drafting one every year is a worse use of mid-round picks than trading up Tanny style IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear this philosophy all the time, but I don't see how it works.  QBs drafted in rounds 3-5 will take time to develop (how many ever do?) and if you keep drafting them, you have to cut one from the last couple of years.  Where does that leave you?  With a guy that might have some promise that you have to ditch because you can't carry 4 or 5 QBs.  You should always have a developmental QB that you like on the roster, but blindly drafting one every year is a worse use of mid-round picks than trading up Tanny style IMO.

 

I think after 3 years of offseason workouts and practice you have a good idea if the kid is the one.  You dont have to rush to judgement.  Do you think that we will know if Geno is the one after this year?  After next year?  I think that if we draft a kid in the next draft and put him behind Geno for 2014, we will know if Geno is the man or if whomever we draft this draft OR next draft takes the reigns.  Look at what Wilson did in his first offseason to unseat a high dollar FA.  That was under Idzik so I dont think that Idzik would play someone just because of their $$$$$.  Good thing for us going forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think after 3 years of offseason workouts and practice you have a good idea if the kid is the one.  You dont have to rush to judgement.  Do you think that we will know if Geno is the one after this year?  After next year?  I think that if we draft a kid in the next draft and put him behind Geno for 2014, we will know if Geno is the man or if whomever we draft this draft OR next draft takes the reigns.  Look at what Wilson did in his first offseason to unseat a high dollar FA.  That was under Idzik so I dont think that Idzik would play someone just because of their $$$$$.  Good thing for us going forward.

 

You can't keep them 3 years if you want to draft one every year. Unless you plan to cut the oldest one every year and you are going to go with one of these guys are starter and a second year guy as backup EVERY SINGLE YEAR.  I don't think too many GMs are quite willing to do that. I sure as **** wouldn't. Also, I think Tanny actually used this general philsophy though it was hindered by all the picks he traded.  In his 7 years they drafted QBs in 4 of them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't keep them 3 years if you want to draft one every year. Unless you plan to cut the oldest one every year and you are going to go with one of these guys are starter and a second year guy as backup EVERY SINGLE YEAR.  I don't think too many GMs are quite willing to do that. I sure as **** wouldn't. Also, I think Tanny actually used this general philsophy though it was hindered by all the picks he traded.  In his 7 years they drafted QBs in 4 of them.  

 

Yup, and he missed, hence we drafted a QB this year.  We draft one next year and we have Geno + Rookie + Garrard/other Vet.  Doesnt seem too bad.  Year after that we make a decision.  Is our rookie, Garrard/vet, or Geno the guy that gives us the best chance to win?  Now we have a 2nd year player, Rookie and Geno/Vet on our roster.  Absolutely possible.  That gets us through the next 2 drafts.  We can revisit this discussion then when we have some names to put with choices :winking0001:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay Cutler?  See Jeff George.  A big arm isn't everything.   The Bears have busted hump to put him in a position to succeed, and he is still the same guy.  Inconsistent and cannot be counted on.  Bears actually look better without him, with Forte beasting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from maybe Cutler, no one on that list is a quality starter.  There would be little to be gained from starting any of those guys over Geno.  Cutler is just as inconsistent as Geno, and isn't half as smart,and doesn't have the athleticism and ability to run that Geno has.  Cutler would cost a lot of money and in the end would kill the team with stupid picks as much or more than Geno would.  The thing with Geno is that he is smart and has shown the ability to learn from his mistakes.  Cutler's been in the league how many years, and has shown little or no ability to learn from his mistakes.

 

As far as I'm concerned, any vet FA the Jets would sign would be just to be a quality backup in case they aren't that high on Simms and to help mentor Geno and Simms.  If there was a quality vet on the list who could really push Geno and possibly supplant him as the starter, fine, but I just don't see one there.  Since they're a young team and on the rise, I'd rather they stick with Geno and Simms, then draft another QB somewhere in rounds 3-4.

 

If they are set on adding a vet, then McCown can still wing it in the cold and wind.  Anderson can wing it and has some mobility.  Either could enter a game and keep the chains moving or give you a few quality starts if need be.  Hill is more of a game manager imo and would be the least desirable of those 3.

Only 1 game, but I was petty impressed with Hill's accuracy in our preseason game. Every pass was right on the money. Not a bad trait as a spot-starter if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Jets sign cutler as the team currently stands, the people who want cutler will be disappointed. Who would he throw to? He doesn't have anyone in Brandon Marshall's league here. I'd be open to the idea of signing him, but I doubt Chicago or Cutler will be so eager to part ways. I like Geno, but after the Sanchez experience I'm done with that urge to totally invest yourself into a young quarterback just because he happens to be starting and we drafted him high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear this philosophy all the time, but I don't see how it works.  QBs drafted in rounds 3-5 will take time to develop (how many ever do?) and if you keep drafting them, you have to cut one from the last couple of years.  Where does that leave you?  With a guy that might have some promise that you have to ditch because you can't carry 4 or 5 QBs.  You should always have a developmental QB that you like on the roster, but blindly drafting one every year is a worse use of mid-round picks than trading up Tanny style IMO.

 

I don't support drafting mid-round guys every year, but if you don't have THE GUY on the roster, it's wise to look at drafting a QB somewhere every season until you find one.  Whether it's a 1st or 7th rounder, if you like a guy on the board, take him.  Especially in our case, where we're cutting Sanchez after the season and Garrard will be retiring, leaving us with just Geno and Matt Simms on the roster.

 

There's always room for a QB.  And if you end up with one that shows you anything, you can have a Matt Flynn/Matt Cassell (eventually maybe Kirk Cousins?) situation where someone else might be dumb enough to trade for one of your QB's or get you a compensatory pick by signing one to be their starter.  QB is a scarce commodity and until Idzik arrived, the Jets were woefully bad about avoiding drafting QB's.....and look where it got us.

Edited by Jetsfan80
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't support drafting mid-round guys every year, but if you don't have THE GUY on the roster, it's wise to look at drafting a QB somewhere every season until you find one.  Whether it's a 1st or 7th rounder, if you like a guy on the board, take him.  Especially in our case, where we're cutting Sanchez after the season and Garrard will be retiring, leaving us with just Geno and Matt Simms on the roster.

 

There's always room for a QB.  And if you end up with one that shows you anything, you can have a Matt Flynn/Matt Cassell (eventually maybe Kirk Cousins?) situation where someone else might be dumb enough to trade for one of your QB's or get you a compensatory pick by signing one to be their starter.  QB is a scarce commodity and until Idzik arrived, the Jets were woefully bad about avoiding drafting QB's.....and look where it got us.

 

 

... and if the Redskins drafted another QB this year and next they would have to cut Cousins or a guy they didn't give 2 years to look at.  I'm NEVER said to avoid drafting QBs, but you have to DEVELOP them too.  Just getting bodies on the roster is meaningless.  You aren't likely to get an instant starter in the mid rounds unless he is a dwarf like WIlson - and that probably won't happen again.

Edited by #27TheDominator
Link to post
Share on other sites

 You aren't likely to get an instant starter in the mid rounds unless he is a dwarf like WIlson - and that probably won't happen again.

 

Who, incidentally, Bradway was SCREAMING that we should draft.  Sometimes our scouting department gets some of these calls right.  Which is why I'd err on the side of "too many QB's" than too few.  I'm not saying you just draft BODIES.  But you have to get QB's who can play, because you can't develop nobodies like Sanchez or McElroy.  Geno seems like one of those who can play, fortunately.

Edited by Jetsfan80
Link to post
Share on other sites

... and if the Redskins drafted another QB this year and next they would have to cut Cousins or a guy they didn't give 2 years to look at. 

 

They looked smart for taking him when RG3 got hurt.  You have to have an insurance policy with a guy like that as your starter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who, incidentally, Bradway was SCREAMING that we should draft.  Sometimes our scouting department gets some of these calls right.  Which is why I'd err on the side of "too many QB's" than too few.  I'm not saying you just draft BODIES.  But you have to get QB's who can play, because you can't develop nobodies like Sanchez or McElroy.  Geno seems like one of those who can play, fortunately.

 

 

Sanchez is exactly the kind of kid that should be "developed"   Anybody that says they knew after year 2 that he would be nobody is full of baloney.  We may have thought it, but you couldn't know and if they cut him to bring in another Erik Ainge they'd be idiots.  If they carried them all we'd be hearing about our lack of roster space. There is no right answer, you just need to keep bringing in guys with potential.  

 

Obviously, it is better to have too many than too few. IMO this is what is wrong with a guy like McElroy. Guys like McElroy and Brooks Bollinger are bascially guys that appear like they might be solid backups or spot starters.  Maybe a decent stop gap.  They do not seem like they will ever be plus starters or "franchise" guys.  That seems obvious from the day of the draft.  In that case, those are the guys that are wasting roster space. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanchez is exactly the kind of kid that should be "developed"   Anybody that says they knew after year 2 that he would be nobody is full of baloney.  We may have thought it, but you couldn't know and if they cut him to bring in another Erik Ainge they'd be idiots.  If they carried them all we'd be hearing about our lack of roster space. There is no right answer, you just need to keep bringing in guys with potential. 

 

Sanchez was always a guy you hoped would get better but the game just moved too fast for him.  We hoped that after the team's success in the first 2 years he'd take the "next step" but never did.  The coaching staff/front office didn't really do right by him starting in 2011, but if he had the ability/personality/brain to handle the QB position, we still should have seen SOME progression. 

 

But he doesn't.  He had dumb brains, moped on the sidelines when things didn't go well (I haven't seen Geno do this once) and he was wildly inaccurate with his throws.  I don't see how you can develop a guy like that.  I was done with him by the end of the 2011 season when he was throwing pick sixes to defensive linemen, but we went and extended him rather than bringing in real competition at QB.  When you have an idea that a kid just doesn't have it you have to be proactive about replacing him.

Edited by Jetsfan80
Link to post
Share on other sites

... and if the Redskins drafted another QB this year and next they would have to cut Cousins or a guy they didn't give 2 years to look at.  I'm NEVER said to avoid drafting QBs, but you have to DEVELOP them too.  Just getting bodies on the roster is meaningless.  You aren't likely to get an instant starter in the mid rounds unless he is a dwarf like WIlson - and that probably won't happen again.

 

There's absolutely no way the Skins would have cut Cousins.  If anything, they could have traded him to a QB needy team and probably done pretty well, but they wouldn't have traded him.  He's their backup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's absolutely no way the Skins would have cut Cousins.  If anything, they could have traded him to a QB needy team and probably done pretty well, but they wouldn't have traded him.  He's their backup.

 

Does not in ANY way change my point. I don't disagree, but the simple fact is that if you draft a QB every year you will have to start cutting them before you know if they have any value and if you are going to trade them it will be before you find out if they are Aaron Rodgers or Mark Sanchez.  It's looks nice on a throw pillow, but in practice it's silly to have these kind of rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not in ANY way change my point. I don't disagree, but the simple fact is that if you draft a QB every year you will have to start cutting them before you know if they have any value and if you are going to trade them it will be before you find out if they are Aaron Rodgers or Mark Sanchez.  It's looks nice on a throw pillow, but in practice it's silly to have these kind of rules. 

 

I agree that it's silly to blindly follow some rule like "draft a QB every year" or always draft the BPA on your board.  That said, there is validity to both much, if not most, of the time. Unless one's GM & scouting dept. is totally inept, it shouldn't take that many years of drafting a QB to find at least a serviceable starter.  As 80 said, they wouldn't be just drafting warm bodies, either.  They'd have to actually like some of the QBs available in the draft and either be in position to draft them or be able to move up or down in the draft to get one they liked.  Those kinds of trades don't always work out, so a team could try to draft a QB every year (without reaching) and it still not work out.

 

I think the difference is in approach or semantics perhaps.  They don't just "settle" for whoever they have.  They keep looking and trying to upgrade the position.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...