Yeah, that sure has worked great....? He's been out for more than half the season! Last year he wasn't anything special, had a good defense, and the Cards still missed the playoffs.
Yes, it has. The Cardinals are 16-6 with Palmer in the past two years as a starter. They're winning with the guy because he's a good enough QB for them.
If your argument against Cutler is that he might get injured like Palmer...then who should we play at QB? Because Bradford ain't going to cut it either with that sort of logic.
We need, at the very least, a game manager that can stay level headed and make a few plays here and there. Cutler isn't that.
No, we don't. We need an average or better QB. Maybe a slightly below average or better QB. Doesn't matter how they do it. We just need a guy good enough to make enough plays on offense that we can win with our defense. Doesn't have to be a game manager. Doesn't have to be a gunslinger. Just has to be an adequate starting QB.
They didn't really win much, he has about a .500 winning record and won what, one playoff game?
Except they did win a lot when they had a good to great defense. They had a winning percentage of 67.5% with Cutler at QB and Marinhelli at DC(which is when their D was good to great under Lovie).
To put it simply in my own opinion, if Cutler is only the average QB we all say he is, how is he going to solve any problem? He might be average but if he couldn't do anything with the Bears who were a better overall team (in the past) in that weak division for so many years, why would he be any better here? I simply don't get it.
How is he going to solve the problem? Look at our QBs over the past 25 games. Do you see the options we have now? An average starting QB solves a big problem for us.
I will repeat again, the Bears had a 67.5% winning percentage with Cutler at QB and Marinhelli at DC over 3 seasons. You give Cutler a defense and he can play well enough for your team to win. We have a defense and we need a QB.
Once you get to the playoffs, all bets are off.
I'm not saying the Rams O-Line is bad, I actually think they're pretty good. I'm saying the Bears is probably about the same, if not slightly better. The fact that we've given up 7 fewer sacks speaks to the fact that Cutler is bad at avoiding pressure. But the bottom line is that the Rams O-Line still needs work.
The Bears OL is not slightly better. They're a pretty bad unit. Cutler is average at avoiding pressure.
I don't think you've followed the Bears the last 6 years. If you had you would understand man. Last offseason all the die hard bears fans I knew swore that the Cutler signing was good/great or adequate, "There's no better option!" "Who else could we go with who is better?!?" they all said. Now its the exact opposite, "I'm done with him" "I've given up." I don't know about you, but I don't want to deal with that personally, and it's just one of those things that's too easy for me to see coming.
Cutler has been in the league for long enough to establish himself. He's done so, and he's known as being a heart breaker.
I did follow the Bears because Lovie and Martz were there. And now I follow them because Alshon Jeffery is there. I know all about Cutler. I called it a bad deal when they signed it. But that's irrelevant.
They're done with him because they're fans and they're losing. Plus, they realize they need to start over. The Bears are in the opposite place that we are in. They have an aging team that needs to rebuild. We have a young, ascending team that needs a starting caliber QB.