<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Bears&src=hash">#Bears</a> announce Jay Cutler signs 7 year deal</p>— Zach Zaidman (@ZachZaidman) <a href="https://twitter.com/ZachZaidman/statuses/418766971132710912">January 2, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I don't have final numbers yet but am reporting for <a href="https://twitter.com/FOXSports">@FOXSports</a> that <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bears&src=hash">#bears</a> qb jay cutler's new deal averages 18M for 1st 3 yrs, source says</p>— Alex Marvez (@alexmarvez) <a href="https://twitter.com/alexmarvez/statuses/418773405286952960">January 2, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Chicago had the 2nd highest scoring offense in the league this year behind Denver, I believe. And they spent years in QB purgatory wasting so many good defenses before getting Cutler - it makes sense that now that they found a pretty good one, they'd keep him and avoid going back to that hell.
But they were a much better team those years when they focused on Defense and had bad QB play, now they are going to be restricted by the CAP big time!
Not as much as you'd think. People tend to forget McCown went 3-2 not 5-0. I'm a lifelong Bears fan and I'm very happy with the signing, doubt it's a ton of upfront money so the years don't matter much. Bears have serious issues on D that need to be addressed, not looking for a new QB. They may draft a young QB in the late rounds and try and groom him but it's a solid signing. Offense will be even better next, just need the D to get back to a respectable level.
The defense getting old and going to hell was independent from having a good QB. If they want to win a SB, they are going to need a good QB. They can either keep the one they have at a relatively high price, or risk spending the next decade looking for one again. I think it's an easy choice in the modern NFL.
Exactly it's not even a decision IMO. Cutler isn't a top 5 QB but he's good enough to win with especially with the weapons around him. This year he had the best season of his career and played very well in games he was healthy in, even the Detroit game which Trestman left him in way too long.
Cutler isn't that good (he's an NFL starter, but not close to being a star QB) and got outplayed by his backup.
As stated before, Mccown only went 3-2 and played some of the worst pass defenses in the league (Redskins, Cowboys especially). I know it's all about the guaranteed money but a 7 year deal is still very surprising. Flacco and Romo's deals really screwed up the market for teams. Good but not great QBs are getting paid so much that it is handicapping the teams. Damned if you do, damned if you don't though.
No its not independent, its all Cap related... if you are spending 18 Million on guys like Cutler than the rest of your team will have holes, and he is no Brees, or Manning, or Brady, he can't overcome those holes on the team.
Depends on how the contract is structured and how much is guaranteed. But that's different from your argument of them being better when they were focusing on defense - they were better because their defense was in its prime. It getting old was independent of getting Cutler - money wasn't going to fix that problem. They would have been far better off 5-6 years ago if they had a good QB and slightly less good defense. And again, their alternative is to risk searching for the next 10 years for a QB like they were doing before they found Cutler. Solidifying the position with a solid, though not spectacular, player has a lot of value in terms of the consistency it creates for the whole offense.
